Legal Studies Chapter 9

duties include

1. General obligations to act in a reasonable manner so as not to put another in harm's way 2. Special duties to certain parties, including the duty to inspect or the duty to warn of defects 3. And assumption of duty

In a products liability case, the injured party may pursue a legal remedy against the seller under one of three theories:

1. Negligence 2. Warranty 3. or strict liability

assumption of risk requirements

1. The injured party/plaintiff knows or should know that a risk of harm is inherent in the activity 2. And the injured party/plaintiff voluntarily participates in the activity

In cases of fraudulent misrepresentation, the law allows the innocent party to recover if

1. The misrepresentation was a material fact known to be false by the tortfeasor 2. The tortfeasor intended to persuade the innocent party to rely on the statement, and the innocent party did, in fact, rely on it 3. And damages were suffered by the innocent party

requirement for statement to be considered defamatory

A false statement concerning a party's reputation or honesty or a statement that subjects a party to hate, contempt, or ridicule, must be provable as false and cannot be pure opinion

trepass to land

A person without permission or legal authorization enters the land and actual harm is not required

Contributory Negligence defense

A rule in tort law, used in only a few states, that completely bars the plaintiff from recovering any damages if the damage suffered is partly the plaintiff's own fault.

negligence per se (violation of safety statutes) statute requirements

A statute must clearly set out: The standard of conduct, When and where the conduct is expected, Of whom the conduct is expected

business special relationship

Businesses have a special relationship with their visitors and patrons that would allow recovery even in a case of nonfeasance

inadequate warning

Failure to warn may render the product unreasonably dangerous even absent any manufacturing or design defect

substantial change defense

For strict liability to apply, the product must reach the end user without substantial change

fair report

If one relies on an official public document or a statement made by a public official and cites the document or public statement when making an allegedly defamatory statement

truth defense to defamation

If the statement made is truthful, no defamation has occurred

public figure standard

If the victim is a public figure the defamation must have been committed with malice or reckless disregard for the truth

trade libel

In cases where a competitor has made a false statement that disparages a competing product, an injured party may sue for trade libel

comparative negligence defense

In cases where the injured party's conduct has played a factor in the harm suffered, jury allocates the proportion of negligence committed by each party in terms of the percentage

what constitutes negligent design?

Inherently dangerous, Contains insufficient safety devices, Consists of materials that do not satisfy standards in the trade

false imprisonment

Intentional confinement or restraint of another without justification

what must be proved in strict liability cases

Once it has been established that the product is unreasonably dangerous, the injured party must prove only that the defective product was the cause of the injuries and that the product caused an actual injury that resulted in damages

conversion

Permanent removal of property from the rightful owner

invasion of property

Public disclosure of private facts

unavoidably unsafe

Some products are designed and manufactured correctly, and adequate warning has been given, but the product is still dangerous

requirement to use qualified privilege

The defendant must offer evidence of good faith and be absent of malice to be shielded from liability

requirements of proximate cause

The injured party must also prove that 1. The tortfeasor's conduct was also the closest-in-proximity cause of the damages 2. And the tortfeasor's liability wasn't canceled due to a superseding cause

trepass to personal property

The intent is not to keep the property, but rather use the property for a period of time and generally no harm is intended to the property

duty

The law imposes a general duty on all parties to act reasonably and not to impart unreasonable risk to other

when is liability under 402 triggered?

The seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product And the production is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without a substantial change in the condition in which it is sold

res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself)

This doctrine allows an injured party to create a presumption that the tortfeasor was negligent by pointing to certain facts that infer negligent conduct without showing exactly how the tortfeasor behaved

assumption of the risk defense

When the injured party knows that a substantial and apparent risk is associated with certain conduct and the party goes ahead with the dangerous activity anyway,

tort

a civil wrong where one party has acted, or in some cases failed to act, and that action or inaction causes a loss to be suffered by another part

types of privilege defenses

absolute and qualified

negligence

an accidental (without willful intent) event that causes harm to another party

strict liability

applies primarily in cases of defective products and abnormally dangerous activities; tortfeasor may be held liable for an act regardless of intent or willfulness

examples of intentional torts

battery, assault, trespass, conversion

cause in fact

but for the breach of duty by the tortfeasor, would the injured party have suffered damages?

express warranty claim

can take several different forms, whether spoken or written, and is basically a guarantee that the product will meet a certain level of quality and reliability

two primary defenses to claims of negligence

comparative negligence and assumption of risk

battery

completion of the assault i.e. physical contact

elements of intentional interference with a contract

contract between A and B, C knows about contract, C intentionally induces party to A to breach contract with B, B sustains damages

determining the scope of risk for closest in proximity

courts favor using foreseeability to define the scope of the risk

implied warranty claim

covers most consumer purchases, there is an implied warranty of merchantability, which means it is guaranteed to work as claimed

theories of unreasonably dangerous defects

design or manufacturing defect, inadequate warning, improper packaging, unavoidably unsafe

elements of negligence

duty, breach of duty, cause in fact, proximate cause, actual damages

negligence in products liability

failure to warn, negligent design, negligent manufacture, negligent testing or failure to test, negligent advertising

elements of product disparagement

false statement about plaintiff's business, product, or service, published statement, harm to reputation, actual economic loss

three types of absolute privilege

government officials, judicial officers/proceedings, state legislators

dram shop law

impose liability on the owners and employees of a public establishment where alcohol is being served

402A of the restatement of torts

imposes strict liability on the seller so long as the injured party can show that the product was in a defective condition and that the defect rendered the product unreasonable dangerous

estate

in addition to land, assets, and personal property, a person's estate also consists of legal rights and entitlements after death, including the right to sue for the tortious conduct that causes the death

fraudulent mispresentation as a tort

in cases where the law provides a remedy to recover damages when the innocent party suffers a pecuniary loss as a result of the false representation

qualified privileges grounded in public policy

individuals reporting crime, media, fair report privilege, employer references

recovery regarding duty

injured parties may generally recover for misfeasance but not for nonfeasance unless the parties have a special relationship

willful conduct

intentional behavior directed by the will

common intentional torts in business

intentional interference with a contract, trade libel, product disparagement

three categories of torts

intentional, negligence, strict liability

Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1966

internet service providers were to be treated as newsstand-like distributors, protected from defamation liability

superseding cause in proximate cause

intervening act may also contribute to the negligence by producing additional damages to the injured party after the tortfeasor's negligent act

defective condition reasonable expectations test

is the defect beyond the expectations of the average consumer?

product liability laws

laws that cover individuals who are injured by a product and may take the form of state common law or state statutes that expressly impose liability for injuries that result from products

written defamation

libel

merchants defense for false imprisonment

limited detention, limited to premises, seizure of stolen property in plain view but not search, no coercion

pecuniary harm

lost revenue or profits, both actual and potential

state of the art defense in product liability cases

manufacturer could not have known of danger or hazard by using the scientific or technical knowledge available at the time the product was made or sold

punitive damage

monetary damages, generally a multiple of the actual damages, that are awarded partly to punish the tortfeasor and partly to deter others from acting in a similar manner

in negligence per se (violation of safety statutes) what must the plaintiff prove?

must demonstrate that the statute is designed to prevent The injury suffered and The plaintiff falls within the class of people the statute protects

intentional tort

one in which the tortfeasor is willful in bringing about a particular event that causes harm to another party

tortfeasor

one who commits a tort

macpherson rule

one who negligently manufacturers a product is liable for any injuries to personal proximately caused by the negligence (not just the purchaser of the product)

Landowner Duty

owe a general duty to parties off the land from any unreasonable risks to them caused by something on the land

consumer fraud protection act

punish those who commit fraud and allow victims of fraud to sue and collect treble damages

privilege defense to defamation

recognizes either a legal or public or policy-based immunity from a defamation claim

products liability

refers to the liability of any seller of a product that, because of a defect, causes harm to a consumer

oral defamation

slander

misfeasance

some act by one party that harms or endangers another party

source of tort law

state common law principles

4 elements of defamation

statement is defamatory, statement communicated to a third party, statement is specific, statement causes injury/damages

elements of trade libel

statement makes a clear and specific reference to the product, constitutes false or reckless disregard for the truth, communicated to a third party, actual economic loss as a result

sellers defenses in strict liability cases for products liability

substantial change, assumption of the risk, misuse of the product, state of the art

Defamation

the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel.

nonfeasance

the failure to act or intervene in a certain situation

malice

the intent, without justification or excuse, to commit a wrongful act or inflict harm

defective condition risk/utility test

the magnitude of the danger outweighs the utility of the product

defamation on the internet

the publisher could be held liable for defamatory statements but the distributor could not

assault

the reasonable fear of immediate harmful contact

induce

to bring about or give rise to, liability is triggered if interference causes the harm

purpose of tort law

to compensate injured parties for losses resulting in harm from some unreasonable conduct by another

defenses to defamation

truth and privilege

determining breach of duty

use reasonable person standard

assumption of risk defense in product liability cases

used narrowly, If a consumer is made fully aware of a product recall due to a design or manufacturing defect but continues to use the product

strict liability for products liability

when an article the manufacturer places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being

design defect

when foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by some alternative design

assumption of duty

when one party voluntarily begins to render assistance even when there is no legal obligation to do so, party must proceed with reasonable care or be held liable

misuse of product defense in product liability cases

when the particular use of the product is so far from its ordinary use that it is not reasonably foreseeable by the selle

two types of intentional torts

wrongs against persons and wrongs against property