This document provides an overview of tort law, including the basic elements a plaintiff must prove in a tort case and affirmative defenses a defendant can raise. It discusses intentional torts like battery and how proximate cause is a policy question about whether liability should extend to unusual or unforeseeable injuries resulting from the tortious conduct. The document also examines intervening and superseding causes that can break the chain of causation, as well as the economic harm rule limiting liability for purely financial losses in most negligence cases.
This document provides an overview of tort law, including the basic elements a plaintiff must prove in a tort case and affirmative defenses a defendant can raise. It discusses intentional torts like battery and how proximate cause is a policy question about whether liability should extend to unusual or unforeseeable injuries resulting from the tortious conduct. The document also examines intervening and superseding causes that can break the chain of causation, as well as the economic harm rule limiting liability for purely financial losses in most negligence cases.
This document provides an overview of tort law, including the basic elements a plaintiff must prove in a tort case and affirmative defenses a defendant can raise. It discusses intentional torts like battery and how proximate cause is a policy question about whether liability should extend to unusual or unforeseeable injuries resulting from the tortious conduct. The document also examines intervening and superseding causes that can break the chain of causation, as well as the economic harm rule limiting liability for purely financial losses in most negligence cases.
This document provides an overview of tort law, including the basic elements a plaintiff must prove in a tort case and affirmative defenses a defendant can raise. It discusses intentional torts like battery and how proximate cause is a policy question about whether liability should extend to unusual or unforeseeable injuries resulting from the tortious conduct. The document also examines intervening and superseding causes that can break the chain of causation, as well as the economic harm rule limiting liability for purely financial losses in most negligence cases.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 7
At a glance
Powered by AI
The key takeaways are that torts involve civil wrongs independent of contract, all torts have the same basic structure involving prima facie elements and affirmative defenses, and intentional torts were discussed.
The elements of battery are that the defendant acted intending to cause harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff without consent, resulting in harmful contact.
The two main tests for proximate causation are the directness test and the foreseeability of the type of harm test.
Glannon-Torts 8/22/2014 5:41:00 PM
BASIC AND INTRO
Torts are typically defined as a civil wrong independent of contract
Tort law is not always about awarding monetary damages but sometimes an injunction, which would prevent future harm rather than compensate for past harm. (e.g. Adam shoots Barbara and Barbaras awarded an injunction against him, meaning Adam cant shoot her again)
Torts all have the same structure The plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence all of the elements of each tort (prima facie). If even just one of these elements is not satisfied, the plaintiff loses the whole suit. o General elements of a tort P must prove 1. That defendant engaged in the requisite tortious conduct 2. Actual causation 3. Proximate causation 4. Damages Affirmative Defenses Even after proving prima facie case for a tort, defense can put up an affirmative defense to remove themselves from liability (i.e. self defense)
INTENTIONAL TORTS Battery, Trespass to Land, Trespass to Chattels, and Conversion Battery o The first phase of the prima facie case, the requisite tortious conduct (Restatement of Torts S13) He acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or imminent apprehension of such contact AND a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results Breaking this down: 1. The defendant (Actor) has acted 2. The defendant intended to cause A harmful contact OR An offensive contact OR Plaintiffs imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact 3. With the person of the other or a third person 4. And harmful conduct has resulted 5. Plaintiff has consented (absent from Restatement but part of prima facie case)
Ch. 14 Proximate Cause 8/22/2014 5:41:00 PM Proximate Causation Basics Proximate causation is just a poorly chosen term for a policy question and actually has very little to do with the question of cause Proximate cause requirement applies to all torts The question of proximate cause considers the fairness or policy consequences of holding a defendant liable in tort when the tort occurs in an unusual way o Ex: Laurent is running through the airport and hits George on the foot, injuring it. It is clear that he is liable for this injury as there is actual causation and he breached the duty of reasonable care by running and not paying attention. But what if George misses his flight because of this? What if he has to get on the next flight which crashes? Is Laurent liable for his death? But for him stepping on his foot, he would not be on the plane that crashed. This is why proximate cause was created, to allow defendants off the hook for policy reasons. The Restatement (Third) dislikes the term proximate causation a lot and prefers the term scope of liability as it more accurately reflects the policy oriented nature of the term. Directness Test (Minority Jurisdiction) Whether the connection between defendants tortious conduct and plaintiffs injuries were close in time and space. Is there a natural and continuous sequence-direction connection? Were the defendants actions a substantial factor in producing the result? (THIRD RESTATEMENT REJECTS THIS LANGUAGE) Courts first accepted this test in Polemis (But went on to reject it in Wagon Mound No. 1.) o In Polemis the falling of the plank (Ds action) and the injury to the Ps boat was connected closely in time and space and therefore D was liable. Foreseeability of type of harm test/harm within the risk (Majority jurisdiction)(Restatement Third View) Whether the type of harm that occurs was a foreseeable risk of defendants negligent conduct. o Polemis under this test would have found no liability on D for the explosion of the ship. The harm of dropping the plank may have been foreseeable to fall and hit person or property but not to cause a large explosion. Another way to phrase it is whether the conduct is a harm within the risk of what makes the defendants conduct negligent. o The harm within the risk taken by defendants in Polemis was the planks may fall and hit someone, not that theyd cause an explosion. (Polemis is a rare case in which P can prove proximate cause under directness test but not under foreseeability of type of harm test. In most cases, Ps who can prove the rest of a prima facie case can easily prove proximate causation under either test) o Same test that applies to 4 th element of negligence per se test The statute was designed to protect against the type of accident the defendant causes (Ex. Poison that is not labeled as poison by the pharmacist, is then dropped and cuts the plaintiffs foot) Proximate Cause and Plaintiffs Conduct in Negligence and Other Cases In a negligence action, for a plaintiffs contributory (or comparative) negligence to reduce the amount of liability on defendant, it must be both an actual and proximate cause of the injury. Intervening and Superseding Causes When an intervening action by a third party breaks the chain of causation o Used in both directness and foreseeability of the harm jurisdictions Ex: Going back to the Laurent example from above. If George were to end up on the 2 nd plane after missing his first due to Laurent stepping on his foot and the 2 nd plane was hijacked by terrorists, George would not prevail if suing Laurent because the terrorists actions would be a superseding cause breaking the chain of causation. o But if George sued the security company (or TSA) that allowed the terrorists to sneak weapons onto the plane he would likely win that suit. o The difference between the two examples is the harm within the risk In the first example, it wasnt a harm within a risk that stepping on someones foot could lead to the type of harm of a terrorist inflicted injury. But in the second example, it was definitely a harm within the risk of inadeqautley screening passengers for weapons that could lead to the type of harm of a terrorist inflicted injury. o Restatement 3 rd sets forth the rule as, When a force of nature or an independent act is also a factual cause of physical harm, an actors liability is limited to those harms that result from the risks that made the actors conduct tortious The Economic Harm Rule Cuts off some liability on policy grounds similiarly to proximate cause A negligence plaintiff who suffers no injury to her person and no physical damage to her property cannot recover for other losses Laycock, Modern American Remedies 109 o Ex: A driver crashes in a NYC bridge at rush hour, delaying thousands of people in the process. It is foreseeable that a crash on a bridge would cause the delay but crushing liability cannot be imposed on the driver for the loss of time on the thousands of delayed drivers (If truckers are delayed from an on time delivery and lose money). The driver would only be liable to those whose person or property he physically injured (whom could also recover economic damages in addition to compensation for their injuries) Exception to this rule is if the only kind of harm the defendant could cause is an economic harm (i.e. you can sue your accountant if he commits malpractice and you lose money because of it)