1. Torts

How is "actual malice" defined for purposes of the constitutional law of defamation?

"Actual malice," must be established by a public official or public figure to recover for defamation. I.e. proving knowledge that the statement was false, or reckless disregard by the defendant as to the statement's truth or falsity. Ill will is how common law defined actual malice, but now SCOTUS has defined the term.

Battery with hockey puck

(i) Act by defendant bringing harmful or offensive conduct (ii) Intent to bring about conduct (iii) Causation Here the fan will likely recovery for battery and the intent element is satisfied because the hockey player (defendant) knew with substantial certainty that the harmful or offensive conduct would result. Here the player's conduct caused the harmful or offensive contact with fan, because the player set into motion the force that caused his injury. Note: Even if player merely intended to cause apprehension of contact, under the doctrine of transfer intent, the intent of the assault would suffice for battery under the doctrine of transferred intent.

Prima Facie elements of trespass

(i) Act of physical invasion of the plaintiff's real property by the defendant (ii) Intent on defendant's part to bring about physical invasion of plaintiff's real property (iii) Causation

Assessing the duty owed by landowner to children under attractive risk doctrine:

(i) There is a dangerous condition on the land of which the landowner is or should be aware (ii) Owner knows or should know children frequent the vicinity of the dangerous condition (iii) Condition is dangerous because child is unable to appreciate the risk (iv) Expense of remedying the situation is slight compared with the magnitude of the risk In the canoe hypo, the third element above is negated because the boy appreciated the risk of taking the canoe out without life vests and will be treated as an adult trespasser. Therefore leaving the canoes out would not constitute a breach of the owners limited duties to adult trespassers.

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.

Transfer Intent Doctrine Applies to:

(i) assault, (ii) battery, (iii) false imprisonment, (iv) trespass to land, and (v) trespass to chattels.

Elements of strict product's liability

(i) defendant is a commercial supplier (ii) defendant produced or sold defective product (iii) defective product is actual & proximate cause (iv) plaintiff suffered damage to person/property If the product was dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer or a less dangerous alternative or modification was economically feasible, then the supplier has supplied a defective product. Furthermore, although some products may be safe for the intended use, they may be dangerous in other respects and courts require suppliers to anticipate reasonably foreseeable misuse.

Presumed damages for defamation (slander spoken, libel written)

(i) disparages the plaintiff in the conduct of her business/occupation (ii) loathsome communicable disease (iii) serious crime or crime of moral turpitude (iv) imputes unchastity to a female plaintiff.

Prima Facie Evidence interference with business relations

(i) existence of valid contractual relationship between plaintiff & third party or a valid business expectancy of plaintiff (ii) defendant's knowledge of relationship or expectancy (iii) intentional interference by defendant that induces a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy (iv) damages to plaintiff

Breach of duty in product's liability case

(i) negligent conduct leading to (ii) the supplying of a defective product by the defendant Directed verdict of by defendant shall be denied where jury could draw an inference of negligence from the plaintiff's evidence.

A principal will be vicariously liable for the tortious acts of her independent contractor:

(i) the independent contractor is engaged in inherently dangerous activities, e.g., excavating next to a public sidewalk, blasting; (ii) the duty, because of public policy considerations, is simply non-delegable, e.g., the duty of a business to keep its premises safe for customers. Note: Not vicariously liable for hiring/supervising negligence, that is separate & her own negligence

To recover under the attractive nuisance doctrine, plaintiff must show:

(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.

Which of the following persons is considered to be an invitee of the landowner?

A child accompanying a customer of landowner, because the child came onto the property for purposes connected to business.

A bystander who witnesses the defendant negligently injuring another can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress in most states by showing:

A close relationship between the bystander and the person injured, the bystander's presence at the scene of the injury, and the bystander's observation or perception of the event. The bystander's presence within the zone of danger from physical injury is no longer required for a bystander to recover for witnessing an injury to another.

Duty of landowner to persons granted permission to use land recreationally for free:

A hiker on the landowner's open land is not considered an invitee. If an owner or occupier of open land permits the public to use the land for recreational purposes without charging a fee, the landowner is not liable for injuries suffered by a recreational user unless the landowner willfully and maliciously failed to guard against or warn of a dangerous condition or activity

A duty of care is generally NOT owed to:

A rescuer, unless the defendant negligently put herself or a third person in peril. A rescuer is a foreseeable plaintiff and is owed a duty of care as long as the rescue is not reckless, but only if the defendant negligently put herself or a third person in peril.

Dependent Intervening force 2:

A subsequent accident may also be a dependent intervening force if the original injury was a substantial factor in causing the second accident.

Which of the following describes only dependent intervening forces in a proximate cause analysis?

A subsequent disease and negligence of rescuers.

A duty of care is owed to:

A viable fetus; prenatal injuries are actionable. A third party for whose economic benefit a legal or business transaction is made is owed a duty of care if the defendant could reasonably foresee harm to that party if the transaction is done negligently. While a landowner owes no duty to an undiscovered trespasser, a trespasser whose presence on the property is known to the landowner is owed a duty to be warned about seriously dangerous artificial conditions on the property.

A allows B to borrow car while B's car is in repair. B gets car back and allows C to borrow car for 900 mile road trip. A finds out B's car is repaired and asks for her car back. Upon finding out B allowed C to borrow the car, B gets furious and refuses to accept the car despite being undamage when C returns it to B. A files suit for conversion. Result?

A will recover the FMV of the car from friend. The tort of conversion does not require damage or permanent deprivation to owner of chattel. All that is required is defendant's volitional conduct result in serious invasion of the chattel interest of another in some manner. Here friend could be bailee of car and bailee will be liable to owner for conversion, if using the chattel in such a manner to constitute material breach of bailment agreement. Given a substantial interference with A's possession occurred, this would constitute a material breach.

Independent intervening forces. These are independent actions rather than natural responses or reactions to the situation

Acts of God Intentional torts Criminal acts of third persons *Defendant may or may not be liable, depends on if they are foreseeable*

But for cause test:

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.

The defendant negligently blocked a road, forcing plaintiff to take an alternate road that was equally safe. Another driver negligently collided with the plaintiff on that road. The defendant is not liable to the plaintiff because the collision is:

An unforeseeable result caused by an unforeseeable intervening force. The result was not caused by a foreseeable intervening force because the other driver's negligence was completely unrelated to any risk created by the original defendant's negligence. Similarly, the collision was not a foreseeable result because traveling on the equivalent alternate road did not make a collision foreseeable.

Which of the following best states who may bring a strict liability action against a defendant engaging in abnormally dangerous activities?

Any foreseeable plaintiff injured as a result of the dangerous propensity of the activity; i.e. within scope of duty owed.

Superseding Causes

Arise in the context of proximate cause rather than actual cause. In addition to being an actual cause, the defendant's conduct must also be a proximate cause of the injury. Causes that arise after the defendant's conduct that contribute to the injury may be so unforeseeable as to be superseding causes, which cut off the defendant's liability for his original negligent act.

Alternative Causes:

Arises when two or more persons have been negligent, but uncertainty exists as to which one caused the plaintiff's injury. Under this approach, the plaintiff must prove that harm has been caused to him by one of them (with uncertainty as to which one). BOP then shifts to the defendants, and each must show his negligence is not the actual cause.

Relationship between landowner & licensee.

As to a licensee, the landowner does not need to inspect for dangerous conditions on the land. Similarly, the landowner need not repair known dangerous conditions on the land of which the licensee is not aware; a warning generally will suffice. The landowner does have a duty to protect the licensee from active operations on the land. The owner has a duty to exercise reasonable care in the conduct of active operations for the protection of a licensee whom he knows to be on the property

Firefighter/police rule precluding negligence

Assumption of the risk and public policy grounds preclude recovery for homeowner negligence to these parties. One engaged in such activities are deemed to know of the risks inherent in that activity, including the fact a landowner may have failed to inspect or repair dangerous conditions on the land.

A defendant intended to commit an assault on A, but his conduct only constituted a battery on B. Under the transferred intent doctrine, the defendant is liable for:

Battery to B. There is no tort liability for an attempted assault standing alone.

Bus driver lights cig causing property damage to landowner whom pedestrian jumped out of the way of bus to avoid injury, damaging the prize winning flowers on way.

Bus driver is liable for negligence. Driver on public road owes duty of ordinary, reasonable care, to refrain from creating unreasonable risk of injury in the operating of the vehicle. In lighting cig, driver created unreasonable risk that he'd lose control, endangering physical safety & property of other drivers on the road, pedestrians, & owners of property adjoining the road. There is a foreseeable risk of injury to landowner/property arising from manner in which bus driver drove; thus the duty of care extended from bus driver to landowner. Further, by causing the pedestrian to jump out of way to save his life, the driver actually & proximately caused damage to the flowers.

Permissive use statute and traditional contribution rules as to employee causing car wreck & company being sued.

Company may seek indemnification against employee, as to entire amount recovered by plaintiff. One who is held liable for damages caused by another simply because of his relationship to that person may seek indemnification from the person whose conduct actually caused the damage. Traditional contribution requires all defendants to pay equal shares regardless of their respective degrees of fault.

There often is more than one cause for an injury. The "but for" test for actual cause applies to:

Concurrent Causes.

The "shopkeeper's privilege" allows a shopkeeper to avoid liability for false imprisonment when detaining a suspect that he reasonably believes has committed a theft. The shopkeeper also must:

Conduct the detention in a reasonable manner and detain the suspect for only a reasonable time.

Strict products liability in non comparative fault regime state, results as to directed verdict of both parties?

Court should deny both motions and let jury determine if the purchaser's misuse is foreseeable. For the motorcycle hypo: While the shock absorbers may be safe for roadways, given the advertisement was for off road purposes and the purchaser may not have taken warning in the owner's manual, it is a question for the trier of fact to determine if the manufacturer should have foreseen that the purchaser would use the motorcycle w/o buying different shock absorbers.

Which of the following is correct regarding self-defense?

Deadly force maybe permissible. person may use deadly force if she reasonably believes that she is in danger of serious bodily injury or death.

To prove breach of duty in a products liability action based on negligence, the plaintiff must show:

Defendant supplied defective product. 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, not the level of care generally exercised by the defendant.

The right of contribution among tortfeasors:

Does not apply against a tortfeasor who is immune from liability. I.e. if the contributing tortfeasor has a defense that would bar liability, such as intra-family tort immunity, she is not liable for contribution.

Race car is accidentally painted pink instead of yellow, causing driver to lose sponsorships. Can driver prevail in claim for treatment of his car?

Driver may recover for trespass to chattels because value of his car was reduced pursuant to D's actions. To recover for trespass to chattels: (i) Act of defendant that interferes with plaintiff's right of possession in chattel (ii) Intent to perform the act bringing about interference with plaintiff's right of possession (iii) Causation (iv) Damages *The act of interference may be either dispossession of or damage to the chattel*

A child is required to conform to a higher standard of care than that of a child of like age, education, intelligence, and experience when the child:

Engages in an activity that is normally one in which only adults engage.

The tort of trespass to land protects a plaintiff's:

Exclusive possession of realty from physical invasion, and all that is required to satisfy this element is a physical invasion of the plaintiff's land. Furthermore, damages are not required for this tort. The defendant has committed a trespass even if the property was not damaged.

Which of the following intentional conduct by the defendant is LEAST likely to constitute a trespass to land?

Exploding a mine on his own land which causes concussion damage to the plaintiff's land.

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.

How should $100,000 of damages be rendered against owner and operator in joint & several liable jurisdiction?

Full amount of $100,000 against both defendants. Where two or more tortious acts combine to proximately cause an indivisible injury to the plaintiff, each tortfeasor will be jointly & severally liable for that injury.

Damages least likely to be recovered under wrongful pregnancy, negligence action in most states.

Future costs of raising the child is least likely to be recovered under damages. While damages occurred do to breach of duty that proximately caused the pregnancy, the law is unsettled as to the extent of damages recoverable, particularly if parents can recover future child-rearing expenses. The intangible monetary value of raising a child (even under these circumstances) is difficult to ascertain and therefore the least likely expense the plaintiff will recover.

Dependent intervening force, rescuers

Generally rescuers are viewed as foreseeable intervening forces, so the original tortfeasor usually is liable for their negligence

General rule of intervening forces

If produce unforeseeable results (i.e., results that were not within the increased risk created by defendant's negligence) will be deemed to be unforeseeable and superseding. A superseding force is one that serves to break the causal connection between defendant's initial negligent act and the ultimate injury, and itself becomes a direct, immediate cause of the injury. Thus, the defendant will be relieved of liability for the consequences of his antecedent conduct.

Pure comparative Negligence vs. Partial

In a pure comparative negligence state, the plaintiff can recover no matter how great their degree of fault. In a partial comparative negligence jurisdiction, the plaintiff's recovery will be barred if her negligence passes a threshold level, either 50% or 51%. (Texas is 51%).

A plaintiff who is 40% negligent can recover 60% of his damages in which of the following cases?

In either a pure or a partial comparative negligence jurisdiction, regardless of the number of defendants and their degree of fault.

For assumption of risk to be available as a defense, the plaintiff must have:

Known of the risk and voluntarily assumed it

Traditional liability rules for landowners & possessors of land:

Landowner owes an invitee a general duty to use reasonable and ordinary care in keeping the property reasonably safe for the benefit of the invitee. This general duty includes the duties owed to licensees (to warn of non-obvious, dangerous conditions known to the landowner and to use ordinary care in active operations on the property). A landowner also owes invitees a duty to make reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions and make them safe.

Biker swerves to avoid car door opening, injuring property on land...liability to biker?

Liable to property owner, despite privilege of necessity to enter yard. Pursuant to privilege of necessity, a person may interfere with property of another where it is reasonably and apparently necessary to avoid threatened injury from a natural or other force, where the threatened injury is substantially more serious than the invasion seeking to avert. In case of private necessity (benefiting small amount of peeps) the defense is qualified, so actor must pay for any injury she causes.

Two standards for defamation public v. private

Negligence by the defendant as to the statement's truth or falsity is the minimum standard imposed by the Court on a private figure when the defamation involves a matter of public concern; actual malice is a higher standard.

Owner of valuable painting witnesses it from across street get destroyed, IIED claim?

No because plaintiff is not within zone of danger, being too far away from tortious conduct. Although suffered harm (shock) being across the street she is not a foreseeable witness.

Can plaintiff sue defendant for defamation during testimony?

No because the accusation is absolutely privileged. All statements made by the judge, jurors, counsel, witnesses, or parties in a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged.

Dentist performs on child and fails to mention anywhere on consent form or verbally of 1% risk of seizure when using anesthetic; operation goes well without any problems. Does mother have action for child?

No because the child suffered no harm from the use. I.E. no damages for dentist' breach of duty. Medical professionals have duty of disclosure of risks to justify the means of a treatment in obtaining informed consent from patient, or patients guardian if minor or lack capacity (here Mother). Complete absence of consent may constitute battery which does not require actual damages be proven as an intentional tort; here however, the non-disclosure is a breach of duty requiring actual damages occur. Here the mother consented to the surgery and use of local anesthetic. Further work completed with no problem and no other injury is apparent from the facts. Furthermore, any possible distress on Mom from not being informed is not standing alone a compensable injury.

Statements made to spouse by third party that were alleged to be true, but end up being false, causing property damage and strained relationship between husband & wife. Can H recover for defamation?

No because the third parties statements were made for the other spouse's benefits. As so, husband cannot recover for defamation because the statements were made under a qualified privilege. Because a public figure or matter of public concern is not involved, falsity or fault are not required for plaintiff's defamation claim. Slander per se because crime against moral turpitude. While all the elements of defamation are satisfied, the third parties statements were made under a qualified privilege, excusing the utterance of the defamatory statement.

If the plaintiff establishes res ipsa loquitur, it will have the following effect:

No directed verdict for defendant. The BOP does not shift, but 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.

Allow friend to borrow car to pick something up, friend does something besides just one errand; car suffers damage as result of friend running errand. Owner successful against friend for damage to car under negligence?

No liability because a reasonable person would not have foreseen the damage to the car arising from the delay in getting the pizza. No duty exists for people to take precautions against events that cannot reasonably be foreseen. Although it is true the delay caused the damages, mere delay in picking up pizza while leaving car parked does not create a foreseeable risk of damage to the car.

May landowner use indirect deadly force to protect land?

No, landowner may not use things such as spring loaded gun, trap, or vicious dog when such force cannot be lawfully used against trespasser.

Mom faints after hearing son scream from outside and seeing he has been injured by negligently repaired tool. Can Mom recover for NIED?

No, the mother cannot recover for damages due to NIED because she was not within the zone of danger from mechanic's negligence. The mother may put forth two theories of her NIED claim, but is unlikely to prevail on either one. First, she may claim distress flowing from fear of her own safety, but will only recover if the defendant's negligence placed her in a zone of danger. Here, she was safely inside and quite a distant from explosion, therefore not in zone of danger. Alternatively, she could claim NIED from her anguish of seeing her son's injuries. However, in most states for a bystander to recover outside the zone of danger, for her emotional distress the following must be proven: (i): Plaintiff and person injured by defendant's negligence are closely related. (ii): Plaintiff was present at scene of injury (iii): Plaintiff personally observed or perceived the event. Here while she is related to her son, she was not present at the scene of the injury nor did she personally perceive the event. Therefore, she is precluded from NIED.

Injured by drunk driver in jurisdiction without dram shop statute. Will plaintiff recover?

No- plaintiff will not recover because there is no dram shop statute to impose liability. At common law, no liability was imposed on vendors of intoxicating beverages for injuries resulting from the vendee's intoxication, whether the injuries were sustained by the vendee or by a third person as a result of vendee's conduct. Therefore, without a dram shop act neither the bar nor bartender will be vicariously liable to plaintiff for injuries caused by the drunk driver.

Dependent intervening forces

Normal responses or reactions to the situation created by the defendant's negligent act. Dependent intervening forces are almost always foreseeable.

Which of the following is correct at common law regarding affirmative duties to act?

One who acts for the benefit of another has a duty to continue the assistance. Absent a statute changing the common law rule, even physicians are not required to come to the aid of a person needing assistance.

What is a licensee?

One who enters on land with the landowner's permission, express or implied, for her own purpose or business, rather than for the landowner's benefit

Which of the following is NOT part of the prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

Physical symptoms caused by the emotional distress.

What occurs when plaintiff ignore risk or negligently assumed risk?

Plaintiff is subject to the defense of contributory negligence rather than assumption of risk

Products liability damage regardless if strict or negligence:

Plaintiff may recover both personal injury damages and property damages for the supplying of a defective product. If the plaintiff's complaint is only that the product does not work as well as expected or requires repairs (i.e., no personal injury or property damages), most courts do not permit recovery of damages for economic losses under either a strict liability or a negligence theory; the plaintiff must bring an action for breach of warranty.

Design Defect BOP

Plaintiff must show a reasonable alternative design, i.e., that a less dangerous modification or alternative for the product was economically feasible and available at time of production.

Plaintiff injured by dog when trespassing on property to retrieve baseball, signs posted before of dog, outcome?

Plaintiff prevails because landowner may not intentionally use a vicious dog to protect only his property. One may only use reasonable force to defend property, not force that will cause death or substantial bodily harm.

In a negligence action, the plaintiff cannot recover:

Presumed damages.

Plaintiffs in products liability action:

Privity is not required, and bystanders are protected & may bring a claim under either strict liability or negligence, however plaintiffs must be foreseeable. Products liability cases based on negligence and those based on strict liability both prohibit recovery of solely economic losses. The types of damages recoverable under both theories are the same: personal injury & property damage.

Which of the following invasion of privacy branches require the plaintiff to show "publicity"?

Publication of facts placing plaintiff in a false light and public disclosure of private facts about plaintiff.

Qualified privilege for defamation

Recognized when the recipient has an interest in the information and it is reasonable for the defendant to make the publication of the stmt. Here it was reasonable for wife to get explanation of why joint bank account was overdrawn. Further, the publication concerned relevant defamatory matter that the speaker reasonably believed to be connected with the interest entitled to protection. Here pecuniary harm (special damages) need not be shown because the statements was likely slanderous per se.

In contrast to products liability cases based on negligence, those based on strict liability do not:

Require that suppliers have an opportunity to inspect.

Which one of the following types of common law defamation requires pleading and proof of special damages?

Slander not falling into one of the four per se categories.

Dependent Intervening force:

Subsequent medical malpractice. The defendant is usually liable for the aggravation of the plaintiff's condition caused by the malpractice of the treating physician.

Substantial Factor test:

Substantial factor test is used for joint causes, where several causes commingle and bring about an injury, but any one alone would have been sufficient to cause the injury. In that case, it is sufficient if defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the injury.

Two boys take canoes out on public water w/o permission of canoe owner. One dies and parents wish to bring Wrongful Death suit against owner, how will canoe owner prevail?

The boy appreciated the risk of taking the canoe out on the lake without life vests. Landowner under the attractive nuisance doctrine owes higher duty of care to children than adult trespassers. Under the doctrine the landowner has a duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to children caused by artificial conditions on the property.

Kids cause $2000 of damage breaking windows, statute places up to $5000 of damage on parents. Will car owner prevail in action versus child?

The car owner is likely to fail because the boy deliberately damaged her car; and a minor will be held liable for the consequences of his intentional tortious conduct. Furthermore an actor intends the conduct of his consequences of he knows with substantial certainty such consequences will result.

Which of the following need NOT be shown by the plaintiff under the attractive nuisance doctrine?

The child was lured onto the property by the attractive nuisance.

Company shoots rockets for gov't and smoke, flames, debris land on farmer's adjacent land. Trespass claim for F? Best fact for company to defeat trespass claim?

The company had no reason to anticipate that the tests would cause any the results that occurred, therefore cannot be said the company intended to commit the act constituting trespass. Absent intent no COA for trespass. Here the company neither acted with the goal for debris to land on farmer's property nor know with substantially certainty that such a consequence would result from its tests of the engine.

Which of the following is true of the duty owed to a licensee by a landowner in a jurisdiction following traditional liability rules for landowners and possessors of land?

The landowner owes a duty to warn of or make safe known dangerous conditions on the land of which the licensee is not aware.

Dependent intervening force, subsequent disease

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.

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?

The plaintiff suffered physical injury because of the defendant's violation of the statute. Any type of damage, property, physical, emotional, etc.. suffice

Which of the following statements is NOT true under the rule that the tortfeasor takes the victim as he finds him?

The rule applies to the victim's existing physical condition but not his mental condition.

What is the key difference between trespass to chattels and conversion?

The seriousness of the interference with the plaintiff's possession. No specific rule can be stated for these situations; however, the longer the withholding period and the more extensive the use of the chattel during this time, the more likely it is that conversion has resulted. An act by the defendant interfering with the plaintiff's right of possession in the chattel that is serious enough in nature or consequence to warrant that the defendant pay the full value of the chattel constitutes conversion.

Unreasonable interference in private nuisance

The severity of the inflicted injury must outweigh the utility of the defendant's conduct.

For purposes of private nuisance, the interference with the plaintiff's use of the land is unreasonable only if:

The severity of the plaintiff's inflicted injury outweighs the utility of the defendant's conduct.

What must be shown for a qualified privilege to apply for defamatory statements?

The statement must be reasonably relevant to the interest being protected

Duty owed invitee i.e. person who comes onto premises for purpose connected to store's business.

The store owed the duty to warn of non-obvious dangerous conditions and to make reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions and make them safe. Shopper's testimony that the water appeared dirty suggest the floor had not been swept or mopped for sometime. Therefore no additional evidence is needed and this is enough for a jury to determine if the store employees failed to reasonably inspect or make safe an area in which invitees would walk, which would be a breach of duty to the shopper.

What sort of liability exists when exploding a mine on land causing only concussion damage to plaintiffs land:

This will likely not constitute a trespass to land. A trespass to land requires a physical invasion of a plaintiff's real property by a defendant. If no physical object enters onto the plaintiff's land due to the defendant's actions, courts will generally not treat the defendant's conduct as a trespass to land. Instead, this will constitute a case of nuisance or strict liability (if ultrahazardous activity).

Activities likely to be trespass:

Throwing a rock onto the plaintiff's driveway. Causing water to flow onto the plaintiff's land. Chasing someone onto the plaintiff's land.

To assert the defense of property, a defendant using force against another may not:

Use force against one with a privilege to enter the property.

Waitress rushes to save patron from choking, slips on something bus boy forgot to clean up, injuring another patron. Liability to waitress?

Waitress will not be liable because nothing suggests fault on her part in injuring the patron. However, patron may recover against restaurant because of the vicarious liability for the negligence of the busboy in failing to remove the slipping material. Furthermore the injury occurred pursuant to a slip and fall which is not a volitional act.

Is interference substantial for purposes of nuisance:

Whether the interference is offensive or annoying to an average person in the community is the test for whether the interference is substantial, which is a separate requirement for establishing a nuisance.

Shopper wrongfully accused of shoplifting gets berated by manager of store in office, however manager forgot to turn of speaker system that announces specials. Will shopper be successful in bringing forth defamation claim?

Yes because the manager should have checked that the speaker system was not on. Due to the negligent defamatory communication to third persons, the shopper will likely recover. A prima facie case for defamation is established by: (i) defamatory language by defendant (ii) of or concerning the plaintiff (iii) publication of the defamatory language by the defendant to third persons (iv) damage to reputation of plaintiff Furthermore the store will be liable via vicarious liability because the communication occurred in the scope of employment. The statements were slanderous per se, and given the blinds were open to the office overlooking the store front other shoppers could see it was the plaintiff being berated. Furthermore, such statements may occur negligently or intentionally to third persons.

Minister photo makes it look like exiting an adult store, prime facie to establish tort of invasion of privacy in false light:

i) Publication of facts about plaintiff by defendant placing plaintiff in false light in public eye ii) False light must be something that be highly offensive to a reasonable person under the circumstances