220 likes | 493 Vues
TORT LAW. DEFINITION. ACT OR OMISSION (OTHER THAN VIOLATION OF AN AGREEMENT) RESULTING IN INJURY OR DAMAGE TO ANOTHER PERSON OR ANOTHER PERSON’S PROPERTY LEGAL REMEDY AVAILABLE. TYPES OF TORTS. INTENTIONAL – THE ACT OR OMISSION THAT CAUSED DAMAGE WAS INTENTIONAL
E N D
DEFINITION • ACT OR OMISSION (OTHER THAN VIOLATION OF AN AGREEMENT) • RESULTING IN INJURY OR DAMAGE TO ANOTHER PERSON OR ANOTHER PERSON’S PROPERTY • LEGAL REMEDY AVAILABLE
TYPES OF TORTS • INTENTIONAL – THE ACT OR OMISSION THAT CAUSED DAMAGE WAS INTENTIONAL • NEGLIGENCE – THE ACT OR OMISSION THAT CAUSED DAMAGE WAS AN ACCIDENT
TORTS V. CRIMES • CRIME • AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE • REMEDY IS PUNISHMENT • STATUTORY LAW • NEGLIGENCE • AN OFFENSE AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON • REMEDY IS COMPENSATION TO VICTIM FOR INJURY • COMMON LAW
INTENTIONAL TORTS AGAINST PERSONS • BATTERY • INTENTIONAL ACT • CAUSES HARMFUL OR OFFENSIVE CONTACT TO ANOTHER PERSON • THE OTHER PERSON DID NOT CONSENT
INTENTIONAL TORTS AGAINST PERSONS • ASSAULT • INTENTIONAL ACT • PLACES ANOTHER PERSON IN APPREHENSION OF IMMINENT HARMFUL OR OFFENSIVE CONTACT • THE OTHER PERSON DID NOT CONSENT
INTENTIONAL TORTS AGAINST PERSONS • DEFAMATION • LANGUAGE • ORAL (“SLANDER”) • WRITTEN (“LIBEL”) • ADVERSELY AFFECTS ANOTHER’S REPUTATION • INTENT TO COMMUNICATE TO A THIRD PARTY (“PUBLICATION”) • TRUTH IS A DEFENSE
INTENTIONAL TORTS AGAINST PROPERTY • NUISANCE • HUMAN ACTIVITY ON (OR PHYSICAL CONDITION OF) LAND • HARMFUL OR ANNOYING TO NEIGHBORING LANDOWNERS OR TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
INTENTIONAL TORTS AGAINST PROPERTY • CONVERSION • INTENTIONAL EXERCISE OF CONTROL OVER ANOTHER PERSON’S PERSONAL PROPERTY • TO THE EXTENT THAT THE VALUE IS DIMINISHED OR THE OWNER’S RIGHT TO USE AND POSSESS IS VIOLATED
INTENTIONAL TORTS AGAINST PROPERTY • FRAUD • INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION • MATERIAL FACT • JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE UPON THE MISREPRESENTATION • RESULING DAMAGE
DEFENSES TO INTENTIONAL TORTS • SELF-DEFENSE • DEFENSE OF PROPERTY • CONSENT • NECESSITY
NEGLIGENCE • ACT OR OMISSION • BREACH OF LEGAL DUTY OF CARE • CAUSATION (BETWEEN THE ACT OR OMISSION AND THE INJURY) • RESULTING DAMAGES
NEGLIGENCE • DUTY OF CARE • REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD • HOW WOULD A NORMAL, AVERAGE PERSON HAVE ACTED • UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES
NEGLIGENCE • BREACH OF DUTY • FAILURE TO LIVE UP TO THE STANDARD OF CARE
NEGLIGENCE • CAUSATION • ACTUAL CAUSE • INJURY WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED BUT FOR THE DEFENDANT’S ACT • PROXIMATE CAUSATION • WOULD THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE DEFENANT’S ACT HAVE BEEN FORESEEABLE TO A REASONALBE PERSON
DEFENSES TO NEGLIGENCE • CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE • PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE A FACTOR IN PLAINTIFF’S INJURY • ACTS AS A COMPLETE BAR TO COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES • COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE • COMPARE THE DEFENDANT’S NEGLIGENCE TO THE PLAINTIFF’S • PLAINTIFF’S COMPENSATION REDUCED BY PERCENTAGE OF NEGLIGENCE
STRICT LIABILITY • LIABILITY IMPOSED WITHOUT PROOF OF FAILURE TO LIVE UP TO THE STANDARD OF CARE • APPLIED TO INHERENTLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES • KEEPING WILD OR VICIOUS ANIMALS • USE OF EXPLOSIVES • DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS THAT ARE UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS