-civil wrongdoing

-non contractual civil wrong committed among the person or property of another 

-not a breach of contract

1. Negligence

2. Intentional 

- not intentional

-carelessness

-accidental injuries

1. Duty of Care

2. Breach

3. Casuation 

4. Injury

- D has duty of reasonable care

- determined by a jury

- Duty to avoid affirmative action to avoid harm to others but no duty to come to aid for another 

1. invitee

2. trespasse

3. licensee

-highest duty of care is for invitee

-because you invited them over you need to warm them of the potential dangers

-no duty of care for trespassers 

- NOT equal 

- all types of visitors should be treated EQUALLY

-reasonable warnings 

Failure to act reasonably

(does not mean you injured someone)

-generally, D breach caused P injury

1. FACTUAL CAUSATION 

and

2. REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY 

1. causation in fact

OR

2. substantial factor 

-"But for" 

-First cause

-cannot include substantial factor 

-heavier burden

-harder to prove

-more direct cause

-could include causation in factor 

-jury has to decide 

-stronger for P

"enough is enough"

- in the eyes of the JURY

- Not the reasonable effect / outcome 

-independent

-breaks chain of causation

- relieve D from farther liability

-key is FORESEEABILITY, if you cannot foresee it you are not responsible 

1. number of other factors contributing to harm and how extensive

2. act of conduct has created a series of force that are continuous and ongoing till time of harm 

3. lapse of time 

(BROWN v. PCOM)

Oldest view - never allows for emotional distress unless you have physical / seeable injury as well

Zone of Danger - reasonable to think carelessness hit zone of danger

Bystander Recovery Rule 

Three FACTORS (not elements - meaning you don't have to prove all 3) to be considered in deciding whether to allow bystander recovery are:

(1) whether the plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident;

(2) whether the emotional shock resulted from a contemporaneous perception of the accident, as opposed to hearing about it later;

(3) whether the plaintiff and the victim were closely related

1. compensatory: monetary, pay back to fix carelessness / damages 

2. Punitive: punishment, fines, sends a message 

1. comparative negligence 

2. statue of limitations

3. No fault system 

-OLD RULE

- P 1% wrong, no recovery, even if D was 99% wrong 

-unfair to P

- minority view 

- outdated 

- NEW minority view 

- no matter how big or little, if P is harmed at all by D, he'll get paid 

- P has to be at less fault than D

-P has to be 51% right 

time period to sue, every causation has a statue of limitation

EXCEPTION: toxin or medical injury, defect did NOT present itself until later 

- murder does not have a statue of limitation

-generally 2 years ONCE you are knowledgeable or alert 

time

money

reliability of facts 

-everyday carelessness

-minor injury

-doesn't pass threshold of money 

-defense for negligence

FEAR

-putting someone in fear of battery 

1. intentional conduct, even if it was a joke by D, the intention need not be malicious or inflict actual damage 

2. Injury by P

1. statue of limitations, 2 years from the day you got hit

2. defense: self or defense in someone in need, equivalent force, only until threat has been neutralized

3. consent: consent to natural contact but anything outside of consent you can sue 

1. slander - spoken

2. libel - written 

-spoken defamation 

- have to show that the statement made you lose money 

-special economic loss: customers, business, sales

-written defamation

-traditionally, been considered more SERIOUS and HARMFUL

- Print (newspaper and magazine) but also includes RADIO and TV

- do not have to show economic loss

-categories of slander that you do not have to show special economic loss 

-grouped with libel, dont have to prove damages to livelihood  

-no money loss required 

1. serious crime

2. serious disease 

3. sexual misconduct

4. incompetence of occupation

1. D made statement of FACT about P, not an opinion

2. statement is defamatory and damages reputation, associated with person directly 

3. FALSE statement

4. communicated to at least one third party

5. P's reputation is harmed 

-D bears burden to prove statement is true

UNLESS you are a:

1. public official (Obama)

2. Public figure (celebrity)

3. limited public figure 

THEN P has to show malice 

1. statue of limitation, 1 year

2. absolute privilege 

3. qualified privilege 

-judicial and legislative proceedings 

-privilege to say anything because you are performing your duty 

-protected 

-narrow 

-circumstances

-calls for your knowledge or profession to speak openly 

-media 

SHOW MALICE by

1. P proves D knew statement was false 

2. reckless disregard to the truth

-commercial

-tort not defamation 

- about PRODUCT

- has to show economic loss

-reputation of goods

1. intent (even if good faith), about the mind, intent to harm is NOT required 

2. affirmative conduct: meant to enter, about the body

=> intentional conduct

3. there has to be INJURY

1. statue of limitations, 2 years

2. legal rights, ex/ police or mailman

3. consent 

1. D confined/ restrained P

2. intent

3. without P's consent

4. injury to P (mental or physical)

1. statue of limitation, 2 years

2. legal right, ex/ police, upon reasonable suspicion 

3. shoe keeper statues / privileges 

-needs PROBABLE cause

- can take and hold in office but have to conduct tension in reasonable manner for a reasonable time, even if they didn't shoplift

(outside of this it is seen as unreasonable and P would get off theft)

1. intrustion

2. disclosure of embarrassing private facts

3. false lie

4. misappropriation 

=> generally statue of limitation is 2 years 

D invades an area where P has reasonable expectation of privacy

-ex/ bathroom, home, bedroom

D discloses info P finds embarrassing, TRUE, reasonable person would find it offensive

ex/ duke slut girl 

-never TRUE

- places P in false light 

-status was NOT lowered

-less serious

-focus on statement

ex/ supporter of abortion 

misappropriation 

intentional infliction of emotional distress

-cause emotional trauma, mental anxiety 

- intentional tort 

-trying to upset somone

1. nor physical harm or injury, intentional

2. D's actions are extreme and outrageous 

3. causation 

4. P has SEVERE emotional distress 

tort

enjoyment of one's property is taken or used

INTANGIBLE

ex/ loud music, smell, light, vibrations 

1. nature of the wrong: abnormal, unnecessary?

2. duration of wrong

3. Proximity to P

4. type of neighborhood 

==> would it effect a reasonable person?

-aka employer liabilty

-employer is liable for employee's tort if within scope of employment 

if there are multiple D who committed a tort, any single one D can be put on the hook for the entire thing 

-P friendly, doesn't have to find others if he finds one D involved 

1. reasonable probability that parties would have entered contract without interference

2. intentional interference and MALICIOUS 

3. D lacked privilege and justification, no defense for action 

4. damage, loss, injury (both compensatory and punitive damages allowed)

1. existence of a binding contract

2. intentional interference, even if D's intentions are pure, malice not required, D had knowledge of contract

3. causation 

1. privilege of competition - if no contract D enjoys ride of competition so long as he didnt do it improperly 

2. Justification - trying to protect someone else's interest, your own protection 

NO MALICE

-FALSE advertising

- prohibits false discriptions or representations of products and competitors 

-protect consumers and competitors 

- cause of action to sue lies in the hands of the competitors not consumers 

talking big, not statement of falseness

-to be actionable statement must be: SPECIFIC, MEASURABLE claim capable of being PROVEN FALSE or of being reasonably interpreted as a statement of fact 

1. exaggeration claims upon no reasonable consumer would rely (nonactionable)

2. vague, highly subjective claims about superiority of products (actionable because of misleading facts)