1) Accident with little evidence, but that would not ordinarily occur if everyone had used reasonable care.

2) It is more likely that not THIS defendant's negligence.

Liable

1) To those protected by the statute

2) For those injuries intended to protect

(comparative defense)

Defense which the defendant maintains that if they were negligent, then the plaintiff was also partially negligent.

Weight cost/risk

Risk: 1) How probable

2) How great the risk

*Probability of any harm (not just the harm that DID occur) coming from your conduct and the gravity of the resulting injury/harm if any results versus the burden of acting in such a way to prevent it.

1) Defendant must have a duty to reasonable care to THIS plaintiff

2) Breach of duty (failure to use reasonable care under the circumstance)

3)Breach was the cause in fact of the harm (Breach, not conduct)

4) Defendant's breach was proximate cause of the harm (foreseeable)

5)Need actual physical damages

1) Must be a merchant/sell things

2) Reasonably believe that the property is being taken

3) Must use reasonable force under the circumstances

4) Cannot ever use deadly force whether the property has been taken

5) Purpose must be to investigate whether the property has been taken

6) Manner has to be reasonable

1) Harm to the property

2) Length that it was (in the other's property)

3) Inconvenience to the other

4) Bad faith

5) Defiance of other's possessory rights

1) Conduct intended to cause/causing

2) An interference with the chattel of another

3) So serious as to justify just paying full market value

Is the breach the cause in fact of the accident?

-Does the breach greatly increase the chance of the accident occurring?

-Is it of a character that naturally leads to this type of accident?

-Must show breach to be a substantial factor in the accident (use the but for test-but for the breach the accident would not have occurred. If that doesn't work, use the first two listed)

1) Must show someone was negligent(without negligence, this event would be unlikely to occur)

2) More likely than not the defendant's negligence (if you are facing a medical situation where you were put under, make sure to implicate all individuals that COULD have been negligent. In some jurisdictions, the burden of proof is shifted to the defendants, and they must show they were NOT negligent)

1) Conduct by defendant

2) Intending to cause and causing

3) Interference with the chattel of another

4) Without consent or privilege

*Two ways to show actual damage (which you need here-physical damage, or interference resulting in owner's inability to use his item)

1) Conduct intending to cause/causing

2) Entry onto land of another (things permanently attached to land)

3) Must be physical entry

4) Plaintiff must have exclusive right to possession of the land

1) Conduct must be intentional/reckless

2) Conduct must be extreme/outrageous

3) Must be a causal connection between wrongful conduct and the emotional distress

4) Emotional distress must be severe

1) Voltional conduct

2) Conduct is extreme/outrageous

3) Intended to cause or reckless AND causing

4) Severe mental/emotional distress

5) Without consent or privilege

1) Threat of imminent force against you/another person

2) Threat of imminent force against property (reasonable)

3) Assertion of legal authority

4) Threat of force

5) Duty to release

1) Defendant must have a reasonable means to escape AND

2) The means of escape must be reasonably apparent

1) Volitional conduct

2) Intent to cause

3) The confinement of another (has to be aware of confinement/physical injury)

4) Without reasonable means of escape

5) Without consent/privilege

1) Purpose of causing the contact

2) Must know to a substantial certainty contact will result from the conduct

3) Purpose of causing apprehension of contact

4) Knowledge (with a substantial certainty) conduct would result in apprehension

1) Reasonably think there is an imminent battery (can be mistaken if a reasonable person would have believed force was necessary)

2) Use reasonable force to avoid battery

-if could have reasonably retreated, some jurisdictions require you to do so

-if not, and threat of deadly force, it is appropriate back

1) An intended tort AND

2) Resulting torts

3) Directly resulting from the first tort

4) Immediately results in the other tort

1) Volitional conduct

2) Intent to cause and causing

3) Reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery

4) Without consent or privilege

1) Implied consent determined by a reasonable person (under the circumstances)

2) Expressed/implied consent

3) When granted as a result of fraud

1) Must reasonably think imminent battery will occur

2) Must use reasonable force to avoid it

3) Can make a mistake as to the necessity of force

*cannot make mistake about if they are protected under self-defense privilege

1) Volitional conduct

2) Intent to cause and causing contact

3) Harmful or offensive touching

4) Without consent or privilege

1) Taking of property was

2) Obtained by fraud or force (meaning no consent)

3) Must promptly discover the dispossession

4) Must promptly, persistently pursue the individual/attempt to get your property back

5) Must use only reasonable force to get property back

1) Must have exclusive right to property

2) Use reasonable force (never deadly force) to remove intruder

1) Just need to be reasonably attempting to save/protect the community

2) Do NOT have to pay damages

1) You are responsible for the damages

2) If you are just trying to save yourself, but you do have to pay damages you caused (tort not intended, but liable for damages)

1) Reasonably think there is serious risk of imminent harm

2) Conduct to avoid that harm has to be reasonable under the circumstances

"same age, intelligence level, experience and maturity level"

Exception: when a child is doing an inherently dangerous activity OR "Engaged in activity usually performed by only adults" -some some argument

1) Breach has to be a substantial factor in plaintiff’s harm (but-for is a test of this rule)

2) Greatly multiply the chance of the action occurring/character that naturally leads to the incident

3) two independent, each sufficient as cause in fact of the plaintiff’s harm: despite this, it is still a substantial factor

4) Courts will shift the burden (only shifting the burden to the plaintiff for cause in fact, must show cause in fact)

a) Must sue every person that could be negligence

b) Must show that all of them were negligent

c) One of them’s negligence is the cause in fact

-Then defendant must prove that they are not the cause in fact of the negligence