intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability

Intentional Torts, Intentional Torts, Negligence, and Negligence, and Strict LiabilityStrict Liability

Section 5-2Section 5-2

What Are the Most What Are the Most Common Intentional Common Intentional

Torts?Torts?Intentional torts are torts in Intentional torts are torts in

which the defendant possessed which the defendant possessed the intent or purpose to inflict the intent or purpose to inflict

the resultant injury.the resultant injury.

AssaultAssaultoccurs when one person intentionally puts another in reasonable fear of an offensive or harmful bodily contact

BatteryBatteryHarmful or offensive touching,

includes pushing,punching, spitting, or shooting.

False ImprisonmentFalse Imprisonment The intentional

confinement of a person against the person’s will and without lawful privilege.

It can include being handcuffed or locked in a room or car.

DefamationDefamationFalse statements that injure a person’s reputation or good name.

o slander—spoken defamationo libel- written or printed defamation

To be defamatory the statement must be:

1. False2. Communicated to a 3rd party3. The victim’s reputation is ruined or he/she

faces ridicule

Invasion of PrivacyInvasion of PrivacyUninvited intrusion into an

individual’s personalrelationships and activities.

Trespass to LandTrespass to LandEntry onto the property of another without the owner’s consent.

ConversionConversionWhen property is stolen, destroyed, or

used in amanner inconsistent with the owner’s

right.Its criminal counterpart is theft.

Interference with Interference with Contractual RelationsContractual Relations

Encouraging someone to breach a contract.

FraudFraudIntentional misrepresentation of an existing important fact.

What is Negligence?What is Negligence? Negligence is the most common

tort!

Intent is not required for negligence.

Like other torts, it involves the elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury.

The Duty in NegligenceThe Duty in Negligence The general duty imposed by negligence

law is the reasonable-man standard. reasonable-man standard —requires that

we act with the care and good judgment of a reasonable person as not to cause injury to others.

Children under the age of 7 are incapable of negligence.

Professionals and skilled tradespersons are held to a higher degree of care in their work.

The Breach of Duty in The Breach of Duty in NegligenceNegligence

The defendant’s conduct is compared to the reasonable-man standard to see if a violation of the duty occurred.

Causation and Injury in Causation and Injury in NegligenceNegligence

The violation of the duty must be the cause of injury.

Defenses to NegligenceDefenses to Negligence Contributory negligenceContributory negligence —defendant

may not have to pay, his negligence may only have been part of the problem (some states)

Comparative negligenceComparative negligence —applies when a plaintiff is partially at fault therefore the defendants payment will be reduced (most states).

Assumption of the riskAssumption of the risk —if plaintiff’s are aware of the danger, but decide to subject themselves to the risk anyway Ex.—walking on a wet floor when there is a warning sign.

Strict LiabilityStrict Liability Liability that exists even though the

defendant was not negligent.Engaging in dangerous activities—

storing flammable liquids.Owning animals—having a dog bite

someoneSale of goods that are dangerous

In other words, even if you did not actually do something that caused injury, something you own did.

Britt was driving home late one rainy night after drinking alcohol all evening. With only one working headlight, she raced down residential streets at speeds up to 50 miles per hour. 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?

What’s Your Verdict?

Britt’s conduct should be compared to Britt’s conduct should be compared to the reasonable man standard to the reasonable man standard to determine whether a violation of the determine whether a violation of the duty occurred.duty occurred.

In this case, a reasonable man would In this case, a reasonable man would drive at safe speed, only when sober, drive at safe speed, only when sober, and with both headlights working. Britt and with both headlights working. Britt clearly breached the reasonable man clearly breached the reasonable man standard.standard.

Britt’s speeding was a breach of the Britt’s speeding was a breach of the duty and it is reasonably foreseeable duty and it is reasonably foreseeable that speeding will cause injury. that speeding will cause injury.

What’s Your Verdict?

Mrs. Lamm went to a grocery store and placed a plastic Pepsi bottle into her shopping cart. One of the bottles exploded and the broken plastic sliced her leg.

Can she collect in tort from the grocery store or Pepsi Co.?

Mrs. Lamm could collect

from either the store or the

bottler under strict liability.