Torty tort tort
A new homeowner had two dogs that frequently barked at birds and squirrels in the yard, especially during the day while the homeowner was at work. A neighbor who worked nights was aggravated by the barking, which disturbed his sleep, and decided to let the homeowner know how he felt. One evening, upon learning that the homeowner was entertaining her boss and several clients, the neighbor came to her front door with a boombox and started playing a recording of the dogs barking, putting it at full volume. When the homeowner came to the door, he began yelling at her and berating her in front of her guests for having no consideration for her neighbors, while continuing to play the recording. The homeowner was very upset, especially because her guests decided that they had better leave, and she ended up losing a bonus that her boss was going to give her at the end of the evening. If the homeowner asserts a claim based on intentional infliction of emotional distress against the neighbor, what will be the probable result? A The homeowner will prevail because the neighbor's conduct was extreme and outrageous. B The homeowner will prevail because she suffered pecuniary harm from the neighbor's conduct. C The neighbor will prevail because the homeowner suffered no physical harm. D The neighbor will prevail if the barking from the homeowner's dogs is judged to constitute a nuisance.
A The homeowner will prevail because the neighbor's conduct was extreme and outrageous. The homeowner will probably prevail on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because the neighbor's conduct was sufficiently extreme and outrageous and the other elements of the tort are present. Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires: (i) an act by defendant amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent to cause severe emotional distress or recklessness as to the effect of defendant's conduct; (iii) causation; and (iv) damages.
Which of the following best states who may bring a strict liability action against a defendant engaging in abnormally dangerous activities? A Anyone injured as a result of the dangerous propensity of the activity B Any foreseeable plaintiff injured as a result of the dangerous propensity of the activity C Anyone directly injured by the activity D Any foreseeable plaintiff as long as she was directly injured by the activity
A defendant engaging in an abnormally dangerous activity may be liable only to foreseeable plaintiffs injured as a result of the dangerous propensity of the activity. This is the best statement of the scope of the duty owed. In most states, a defendant will be liable only to those persons to whom a reasonable person would have foreseen a risk of harm under the circumstances. In general, strict liability is not imposed for injuries to a plaintiff to whom no reasonable person would have foreseen a danger. The defendant will not be strictly liable to all plaintiffs who were directly injured by the activity. Rather, the harm must result from the kind of danger to be anticipated from the abnormally dangerous activity; i.e., it must flow from the "normally dangerous propensity" of the activity involved.
What does a prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress require?
A prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires proof of: (i) an act by the defendant amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent on the part of the defendant to cause the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, or recklessness as to the effect of the defendant's conduct; (iii) causation; and (iv) damages—severe emotional distress. Intent to cause the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress establishes the intent element of the tort. Reckless disregard of a high probability that emotional distress will result also satisfies the intent element of the tort. Evidence of severe emotional distress must be shown; hurt feelings are not sufficient. An act by the defendant amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct is an element of the tort.
A patient troubled by an irritating skin rash consulted a dermatologist for treatment. The dermatologist diagnosed the rash as a genetic condition that had no cure and would ultimately spread and lead to disfigurement. The patient was shocked and distressed by the diagnosis. On the advice of her family, a week later the patient consulted another doctor. That doctor immediately diagnosed the skin rash as a common bacterial infection and prescribed an ointment that cleared up the condition in a few days. Because the doctor was a friend of the family, the patient was not charged for that visit. Can the patient recover from the dermatologist for the emotional distress caused by his erroneous diagnosis? A Yes, but only if the patient's distress caused her some physical injury. B Yes, because the misdiagnosis by the dermatologist caused the patient actual harm. C No, because the patient did not have to pay for the second doctor visit. D No, because the dermatologist's conduct did not create a foreseeable risk of physical injury to the patient.
B is the answer. The patient's distress is a recoverable element of damages caused by the dermatologist's breach of duty to her. A medical specialist such as the dermatologist owes a duty to possess and exercise the degree of knowledge and skill that dermatologists across the nation exercise. He breached that duty by misdiagnosing a common skin infection that another doctor was able to diagnose immediately. His failure to properly diagnose the condition was the actual and proximate cause of injury to the patient; but for the misdiagnosis, she would not have had to continue suffering from the rash until the other doctor properly treated it. The continuation of the rash and any pain and suffering from it are compensable damages that she can recover from the dermatologist. Also compensable is the emotional distress that she suffered because of the misdiagnosis. While recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress is not always available in many jurisdictions when there is no other injury caused by the breach, these restrictions do not apply when plaintiff is the victim of another tort that causes physical injury. Plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress that arise from the tortious conduct.
Which of the following describes only dependent intervening forces in a proximate cause analysis? A Efforts to protect person or property and acts of God. B Subsequent medical malpractice and criminal acts of third persons. C A subsequent disease and negligence of rescuers. D A subsequent accident and an intentional tort of a third person.
C is the answer. Dependent intervening forces are normal responses or reactions to the situation created by the defendant's negligent act. Dependent intervening forces are almost always foreseeable. A subsequent disease is a common dependent intervening force. The original tortfeasor is usually liable for diseases caused in part by the weakened condition in which the defendant has placed the plaintiff by negligently injuring her. Also, negligence of rescuers is a common dependent intervening force. Generally rescuers are viewed as foreseeable intervening forces, so the original tortfeasor usually is liable for their negligence. Efforts to protect person or property are common dependent intervening forces. A defendant is usually liable for negligent efforts on the part of persons to protect the life or property of themselves or third persons endangered by the defendant's negligence. Subsequent medical malpractice is also a common dependent intervening force. The defendant is usually liable for the aggravation of the plaintiff's condition caused by the malpractice of the treating physician.
A golfer and her instructor were playing golf in a foursome when the golfer became very annoyed with critical comments made by the instructor. To show the other golfers in the group how annoyed she was with her instructor, the golfer stood a few yards behind him while the instructor was teeing off and swung a club at him. The instructor, who was focusing on his shot, was not within range of the club but unfortunately the club slipped out of the golfer's hands and struck the instructor in the head, injuring him. If the instructor brings a battery action against the golfer, will he recover? A Yes, because the golfer acted intentionally and caused harmful contact to her instructor. B Yes, because the golfer intended to cause the instructor reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact. C No, because the golfer did not intend to cause harmful or offensive contact. D No, unless the golfer acted unreasonably in swinging the club at her instructor.
C. No, because the golfer did not intend to cause harmful or offensive contact. The prima facie case for battery has the following elements: (i) an act by the defendant that brings about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff's person; (ii) intent on the part of the defendant to bring about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff's person; and (iii) causation. Here, the golfer did not have the intent to cause harmful or offensive contact. Hence, she will not be guilty of battery.
Are principals vicariously liable for the tortious activities of their independent contractors?
In general, a principal will not be vicariously liable for tortious acts of an independent contractor. Two broad exceptions exist, however: (i) the independent contractor is engaged in inherently dangerous activities, e.g., excavating next to a public sidewalk, blasting; or (ii) the duty, because of public policy considerations, is simply nondelegable, e.g., the duty of a business to keep its premises safe for customers
Is a physical symptom required for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
No.
There often is more than one cause for an injury. The "but for" test for actual cause applies to:
The "but for" test for actual cause applies to concurrent causes. An act or omission to act is the cause in fact of an injury when the injury would not have occurred but for the act. This test applies in concurrent cause cases, where several acts combine to cause the injury, but none of the acts standing alone would have been sufficient. But for any of the acts, the injury would not have occurred.
When is interference unreasonable under nuisance?
The interference with the plaintiff's use of the land will be considered unreasonable under nuisance law when the severity of the plaintiff's inflicted injury outweighs the utility of the defendant's conduct. In balancing these respective interests, courts take into account that every person is entitled to use his own land in a reasonable way, considering the neighborhood, land values, and existence of any alternative courses of conduct open to the defendant.
If a statute providing for a criminal penalty is applicable to a common law negligence case, the statute's specific duty will replace the more general common law duty of care. Which of the following does a plaintiff NOT need to show to prove the availability of the statutory standard? A The plaintiff is in the class intended to be protected by the statute. B The statute was designed to prevent the type of harm that the plaintiff suffered. C The plaintiff suffered physical injury because of the defendant's violation of the statute. D The standards set out in the statute are clearly defined.
The plaintiff need not suffer physical injury from the defendant's violation of the statute. While damages is an element of the prima facie case for negligence, any type of damages, including property damages, will suffice. To prove the availability of the statutory standard, a plaintiff must show that the standards set out in the statute are clearly defined. For the statute to apply, (i) the plaintiff must be in the class intended to be protected by the statute, and (ii) the statute must have been designed to prevent the type of injury that he suffered.
Which of the following statements is NOT true under the rule that the tortfeasor takes the victim as he finds him? A The rule applies to the victim's existing physical condition but not his mental condition. B The rule applies in both direct cause cases and indirect cause cases. C The unforeseeable severity of the plaintiff's harm does not relieve the defendant of liability. D The rule is also known as the "eggshell-skull plaintiff" rule.
The rule that the tortfeasor takes the victim as he finds him applies to both the victim's existing physical condition and his mental condition. In both direct cause cases and indirect cause cases, the fact that the extent or severity of the harm was not foreseeable does not relieve defendant of liability; in other words, the unforeseeable severity of the plaintiff's harm, or its extent, is irrelevant under this rule. This rule is also known as the "eggshell-skull plaintiff" rule.
To prove breach of duty in a products liability action based on negligence, the plaintiff must show:
To prove breach of duty in a products liability action, the plaintiff must show (i) negligent conduct by the defendant leading to (ii) the supplying of a defective product by the defendant. Negligent conduct is demonstrated by showing that the defendant's conduct fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person under like circumstances
What are the elements of the attractive nuisance doctrine?
Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, a landowner has a duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to children caused by artificial conditions on the property. To recover under this doctrine, the plaintiff must show that (i) there is a dangerous condition present on the land of which the owner is or should be aware, (ii) the owner knows or should know that young persons frequent the vicinity of this dangerous condition, (iii) the condition is likely to cause injury, i.e., is dangerous, because of the child's inability to appreciate the risk, and (iv) the expense of remedying the situation is slight compared with the magnitude of the risk.
In contrast to products liability cases based on negligence, those based on strict liability do not: A Require an injured bystander to be foreseeable. B Require that suppliers have an opportunity to inspect. C Prohibit recovery of solely economic losses. D Impose liability when an intermediary negligently failed to discover the defect.
Unlike with products liability cases based on negligence, those based on strict liability do not require that suppliers have an opportunity to inspect. Thus, for a case based on the sale of a defective product, a retailer in a strict liability action may be liable for a manufacturing or design defect simply for being a commercial supplier of that defective product, even if it had no opportunity to inspect the manufacturer's product before selling it.
What's the MOST you get out of res ipsa loquitor?
You get past D's motion for a directed verdict, which she made because you couldn't plead the negligent act. The circumstantial evidence doctrine of res ipsa loquitur deals with those situations where the fact that a particular injury occurred may itself establish or tend to establish a breach of duty owed. Where res ipsa loquitur has been proven, the plaintiff has made a prima facie case, and a directed verdict will not be given for the defendant. Application of the doctrine does not shift the burden of proof to the defendant, nor does it create a presumption of negligence. Furthermore, the doctrine does not result in a directed verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant may introduce evidence that due care was exercised, and the jury may reject the permissible inference that may be drawn from the res ipsa proof and find for the defendant.