Civil Law and Procedure

Civil Law and Procedure

How do crimes differ from Torts • 1. A crime is an offense against society. • 2. A tort is a private or civil wrong. • It is an offense against an individual • The inured person can sue for damages (a monetary award intended to compensate for harm done)

How do crimes differ from Torts One act can be both crime (fine or jail) and tort (money damages) Money is intended to compensate for injury.

After an exhausting day of skiing, Josephina was driving home near sunset. She dozed off momentarily and crossed the highway dividing lane. She then crashed head-on into John’s panel truck. Both drivers were seriously injured, and their vehicles were “totaled.” Although Josephina was asleep at the time, has she violated any rights of the other driver? Crime – Reckless driving Tort – injured the John’s property

Elements of a Tort? 1. Duty - legal obligation owed another to do or not to do something? Usually defined by state laws 2. Breach -Violation of Duty 3. Injury (recognized by law) 4. Causation – proof that the breach caused the injury

Elements of a Tort? Duty Judge will decide if duty exists using state case and statutory law and occasionally federal law. Duties caused by tort law: 1. duty not to inure another (bodily, reputation, invasion of privacy) 2. duty not to interfere with the property rights of others (example trespassing) 3. duty not to interfere with the economic rights of others. (example: right to contract)

Elements of a Tort? Violation of Duty Breach of duty is almost always a question of fact for the: Jury to decide Three types of mental states at the time of the tort: Intentional, Negligence, Strict Liability.

Elements of a Tort? Causation Proximate Cause - the amount of cause exists when it is reasonably foreseeable that a particular breach of duty will result in a particular injury (Association of breach and injury) All persons, including minors, are personally responsible for their conduct and therefore liable for their torts. Even children or insane persons may be held liable for injuring others.

Elements of a Tort? Causation Vicarious liability – when one person is liable for the torts of another. In some states have parental responsibility laws. They require parents make restitution for their child’s acts.

Elements of a Tort? Causation What parties might be held responsible for another person’s tort? Parents (for their children) Employers (for their employees)

Hunt was taking riding lessons from Saddleback Stables. Patterson, the Saddleback instructor, was a skilled rider although only 15 years old. Nevertheless, during a lesson while leading the horse Hunt was riding Patterson negligently dropped the bridle. As a result, the horse bolted and Hunt was thrown to the ground and inured. Who was liable for Hunt’s injuries? Patterson would be Saddleback Stables also

Intentional Torts, Negligence, and Strict Liability 5-2

Intentional Torts • Torts in which the defendant possessed the intent or purpose to inflict the resultant injury? • Defendant intended either the injury or threat. • Indent to produce injury not required.

Intentional Torts 1. Assault 2. Battery 3. False Imprisonment 4. Defamation 5. Invasion of privacy 6. Trespass 7. Conversion 8. Interference with Contractual Relations. 9. Fraud

Intentional Torts Assault Intentionally threatens to injure another . Must be believable with ability to carry it out. from the viewpoint of the potential victim. Can be physical or offensive sexual.

Question: Spencer thought willis had swindled him. Spencer told Wills that he was going to “beat your face to a pulp.” Was there assault? Spencer is elderly and totally blind. Was there assault.

Intentional Torts Battery An unlawful or harmful touching Shooting, pushing, spitting on, etc. Assault usually comes before battery If contact is not intentional then no battery No battery if action justified (self-defense)

Intentional Torts false imprisonment • Depriving a person of freedom of movement without consent or without privilege. • locked in car, threatened to stay in one place, handcuffed. • Merchants may detain a person if they have a reasonable basis for believing the person was shoplifting.

Question: While Augusto was driving Sharon on a date to the theater, she became angry and told him to stop the car and let her out. Augusto refused and increased his speed to make it impossible for Sharon to get out. He kept her in the car this way for one half hour. Was Sharon falsely imprisoned. Yes

Question: Edna was dressed in jeans, old tennis shoes, and a torn, faded shirt when she went shopping in an expensive high-fashion department store. A security officer became suspicious of her because of her mode of dress. As Edna was leaving, she was stopped and asked to empty her pockets. Outraged, she said, “Leave me alone.” When she tried to leave, the security officer produced handcuffs and said “If you don’t cooperate, I’ll cuff you until the police get here.” Was this false imprisonment. The security officer did not have a reasonable basis for detaining Edna. Therefore, she was falsely imprisoned.

Intentional Torts Defamation False statements made to injure one’s reputation. Must be false Someone else must have heard or read. Bring the victim into disrepute, contempt, or ridicule by others.

Intentional Torts Defamation Slander - if spoken (you must show that you suffered an actual physical loss) Liable - if written (assumed to have suffered a loss so damages do not have to be shown to the court) Statements about public officials or prominent personalities does not count unless statements are made with malice.

Intentional Torts Invasion of Privacy Unwelcome, unlawful intrusion into one’s private life so as to cause outrage, mental suffering, humiliation. Protected when you have a reasonable “expectation of privacy” Freedom from commercial exploitation of one’s name, picture or endorsement without permission.

Public figures give up some rights when they step into the public domain.

Intentional Torts Trespass Entering the realty of another without the owner’s consent. Can also be interference with property such as dumping garbage onto another’s property. Intent to be on the property required, but intent to Trespass is not required.

Intentional Torts Conversion Property owner’s right to do what they would like with their own property is violated. The right is violated if the property is stolen, destroyed, or used in a manner inconsistent with the owner’s rights.

Question: Sanchez went on a three-week vacation . He left the key to his house with his neighbor, Buckley. Without permission, Buckley used the key to get into Sanchez’s garage to borrow Sanchez’s new chain saw. Buckley used the chain saw for two weeks to cut up nine cords of firewood. When Sanchez returned home and discovered what had happened, he sued Buckley. Is this correct? What can he recover? He can recover the rental value of the chain saw, or he could let Buckley keep the chain saw and sue for the price of a new one.

Intentional Torts Interference with Contractual Relations If a third party encourages a breach on contract they may be liable in tort to the nonbreaching party.

Question: A brilliant scientist had a long-term employment contract to do genetic research at a famous university. A competing research laboratory persuaded the scientist to breach the agreement and come to work for it. As a result, the university could sue the scientist for breach of contract. In addition, the university could sue the laboratory for the tort of interference with contractual relations.

Intentional Torts Fraud Intentional misrepresentation of an existing important fact. The misrepresentation must be relied on and cause financial injury. Typically a statement of opinion is not considered fraudulent.

Question: Waters advertised that he possessed expertise in tax matters. Relying on such advertising, Midwest Supply had Waters prepare its federal income tax return. Waters assigned the preparation of the return to a new employee who was not qualified, and the tax return was defective. Midwest was required to pay additional taxes and sued Waters for damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Midwest for extra damages of $100,000 to punish Waters. Judgement was entered on this verdict and Waters appealed.

Question: Judgement was affirmed. The defendant had misrepresented to the public that tax returns prepared by it were prepared by experts. The new employee preparing the Midwest returns was not qualified. He was a former construction worker and did not have nay special training in tax return preparation. The claim of Waters that expert service was provided his clients was fraudulent. The damages were therefore properly awarded.

Question: Which of the intentional Torts are torts against persons and which are intentional torts against property?

Negligence The most common tort Intent not required only carelessness.

Negligence The difference between negligence and intentional torts involves Motivation. The person who commits a negligent tort does not deliberately set out to cause personal or property injury, but causes injury through carelessness. The person who commits an intentional tort commits a deliberate injury.

Negligence Reasonable-man standard-ones legal obligations toward other people. DUTY - The duty requires that we act with the care prudence and good judgement of a reasonable person so as not to cause injury to others. CAUSATION AND INJURY – the violation of the duty must be the proximate cause of the injury.

Question: Britt was driving home late one rainy night after drinking alcohol all evening. She raced down residential streets at speeds up to fifty miles per hour with only one working headlight. Meanwhile, Yee was slowly backing her station wagon out of her driveway, but she failed to look both ways when she should have. Britt rammed into the right rear end of Yee’s car. Yee’s station wagon was badly damaged, and she was injured. Can Yee collect from Britt? A reasonable person would drive at a safe speed and only when sober with working lights. So yes Yee could collect property damage and personal injury damage.

Defenses to Negligence 1. Contributory Negligence 2. Comparative negligence 3. Assumption of risk.

Contributory Negligent If the plaintiff’s own negligence was a partial cause of the injury they cannot recover and money. Does not matter if you were only a little negligent.

Question: Britt and Yee If Yee backed up without looking left or right could Yee Still recover damages? Not if Yee was in a state that recognizes contributory negligence. It does not matter if one party was more negligent than the other.

Comparative Negligence Applies when a plaintiff in a negligence action is partially at fault. The plaintiff is awarded damages but they are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s negligence. Cannot recover if you are more at fault then defendant. Most states have this.

Assumption of Risk If plaintiffs are aware of a danger, but decide to subject themselves to the risk, that is a defense. They cannot recover

Strict Liability This liability exist even though the defendant was not negligent. The defendant is liable if they were engaged in a particular activity that resulted in injury. Blasting, crop dusting, dangerous animals ownership.

Strict Liability Under strict liability the manufacturer and any seller in the chain of distribution are liable to any buyer of the defective product who is injured by it. Selling of goods that are unreasonably dangerous. Strict Liability is necessary because negligence often is difficult to prove, and without it the victim would not be compensated.

Question: Mrs. Lamb went to a grocery store and placed a carton of carbonated soft drink in her shopping cart. One of the bottles exploded and the broken glass cut her leg. Can she collect in tort from the grocery store or the bottler? Mrs. Lamm could collect from either the store or the bottler,

Elements of a Tort? Duty - legal obligation owed another to do or not to do something? Usually defined by state laws Violation of Duty(The activity and injury sustained substitutes in strict liability cases.) Injury Causation - breach of duty that caused the injury.

Question: With a partner come up with a scenario that would fall under strict liability. What type of evidence would be needed to prove the tort in court?

Civil Law and Procedure