Torts Attack Sheet

I) NegligenceA) DutyB) BreachC) Causation (actual & proximate)D) Damages

II) Protected interestsA) Body/person personal injuryB) Property property damageC) Emotional wellbeing NIEDD) Personal relationship loss of

consortiumE) $$$ economic loss

III) Proximate causeA) Foreseeability (natural sequence, time/space, direct connection, substantial factor)

1) Plaintiff (& danger invites rescue)2) Scope of risk type, manner, extent

B) Cause, not “mere condition”C) Policy

1) Limit liability somewhere2) Proportionality

D) Loss of chance recovery for increment of chance survival lost due to neg diagnose, etcE) Intervening causes

1) “Foreseeable intervention” (one of reasons D’s conduct negligent) still P/C2) Intentional tort / crime = superseding cause UNLESS

(i) Negligence due, in part, to enabling the criminal act

IV)Pure emotional distressA) (Impact rule (old))B) Zone of danger rule

1) Fear for self OR2) Fear for others, too

C) CA: bystander recovery1) Actually at the scene2) Saw accident as it occurred (directly, can’t be looking the other direction)3) Immediate family member distress > expected from ordinary bystander

D) Direct victim preexisting relationship (or D’s actions directed at P)E) Toxic torts (mesothelioma) no pure ED (Policy: prioritizing recovery for phys injury)

V) Loss of consortiumA) Spousal

1) Not cohabitants policy (would undermine institution of marriage)2) Not parent-child intangible loss (so mere “consolation prize”), slippery slope,

admin costs, whole new cause of action (w/o precedent), spousal relationship is special, other Jx don’t recognize

VI)Pure economic lossA) K remedy: req privity & can be waived/disclaimedB) Tort: generally not w/o privity (slippery slope) BUT

1) Quasi-privity (3rd party known, intended use known + reliance)2) OR “particularly foreseeable Ps” limited class3) *foreseeable reliance any P who foreseeably relies may recover for neg misrep

Torts Attack Sheet

VII) Contributory NegligenceA) Same elements as primary negligence claimB) Last clear chance

1) Helpless P D knows P helpless, (reason to) know the danger OR would discover by due care

2) Inattentive P D (reason to) know P inattentive + D neg in failing to take the chance to avoid harm

VIII) Comparative NegligenceA) Pure vs Modified

1) & issues of jt&sev liability, whether P must just be less than 50% fault (or less than all Ds, or combo)

B) Failure to mitigate1) Complete bar to recover extra damage incurred2) *Pre-accident failure to mitigate: split (no recover for increased injury, part of C/N,

no bearing)C) *If the very reason D’s conduct was negligent is that encouraged/allowed C/N of other

(e.g., kids), maybe C/N disallowed

IX)Assumption of riskA) Primary A/R no duty / limited duty (and no breach)

1) Express agreement A/R (narrowly construed, may be void for unconsc / pub pol)2) Implied-in-fact / actual consent (touch-football game)

B) Secondary A/R now part of C/N (old affirmative defense)1) Implied A/R fully understands risk, knows unreasonable, voluntarily takes

X) ImmunitiesA) Qualified (some exception, area w/o liability) VS Absolute (no liability)B) Governmental / Sovereign

1) Federal Tort Claims Act (sim to state acts) abrogate govt immunity(i) Not intentional; not S/L(ii) Not for discretionary function / policy choice(iii) (notification + fed ct/no jury)

C) Charitable immunity (mostly gone liability insurance, substitute govt programs)D) Intrafamily immunity (mostly gone liability insurance, so damages from outside)

1) *kid v parent some Jx still immunity where q’n of parent’s discretion

XI)Statute of limitations

Torts Attack Sheet

XII) Strict LiabilityA) Animals

1) Livestock: fencing-in or fencing-out2) Wild animals: S/L for owner/possessor (except public zoos)3) Domesticated: S/L IFF (reason to) know animal vicious (+ statutes)

B) Abnormally dangerous activities1) S/L, but limited to type of harm that makes the activity abnormally dangerous

(i) High risk + great harm(ii) Can’t eliminate risk through reasonable care(iii) Not common usage (or inappropriate in that location)(iv)Value of activity to society

2) Policy & rationale(i) Non-reciprocal risks; Accuracy; Administrative costs; Activity-level effects

XIII) DamagesA) Compensatory

1) Medical expenses(i) Avoidable consequences(ii) Collateral source rule (non-gratuitous + abrogated by statute)

2) Lost earnings3) Lost earning capacity ( homemakers mkt value homemaking OR opportunity cost)4) Pain & suffering: req conscious (physical pain/mental suffering) , per diem argument5) Hedonic damages loss of enjoyment of life

(i) Split: some req consciousness (like P&S) or group w/in P&SB) Punitive

1) malice (intent/purpose to harm) OR implied malice (wanton/reckless disregard)2) Notice & due process both of liability & amt liable

(i) Degree of reprehensibility of D’s conduct(ii) Disparity btw actual/potential harm punitive award(iii) Disparity btw civil penalties for comparable conduct punitive award(iv)*1:9 limit

Torts Attack Sheet

XIV) Products Liability S/L

A) Cause of action vs seller of product1) Defect (unreasonably dangerous for intended use)

(i) Manufacturing departs from intended design(ii) Design design itself creates unreasonable risk (*need feasible alternative)(iii) Marketing bad instructions or failure to provide adequate warning

2) Causation (actual & proximate)3) Injury (personal or property)

B) Affirmative defenses1) C/N “assigning shares of responsibility”

(i) Nature of the risky conduct (whether aware/indifferent to risk OR intent harm)(ii) + strength of causal connection(iii) *implied A/R knowing, unreasonable, voluntary decision to use despite

defect

C) Manufacturing defects ready-made comparison to see if defectiveD) Marketing defects: inadequate warning

1) Open & obvious (*but maybe design defective despite)2) Heeding presumption (*but rebuttable)3) End user or intermediary (note: no learned intermediary for contraception)4) *similar to negligence

(i) exception: NJ asbestos case (liable despite couldn’t know risk at the timeE) Design defects

1) Usu must show (expert, data) feasible, safer alternative (available at the time of mfr)2) Tests

(i) Risk – utility test (R(3d))(a) Utility vs Risk (probability * extent)(b) Safer alternative available

(1) Can make safer w/o decrease utility, increase cost (too much)(c) User ability to avoid injury w/ reasonable care(d) Mfr anticipate user’s awareness of risk & avoidability (common knowledge,

obvious, adequate warning)(e) Possible loss spreading by Mfr

(ii) Reasonable consumer expectations (R(2d))(a) Average consumer has expectation re: min safety required

(iii) CA CE (no expert) unless very complex, etc. R-U