Intentional Torts Battery 1) Act 2)Intent 3)Harmful or offensive contact 4) Causation -Eggshell take victim as you find them

Assault 1)Act 2)Intent 3) Causing apprehension 4) of H/O contact 5) that is imminent -Words alone wont count unless coupled with overt actions False Imprisonment 1) Intent 2) Confinement in fixed boundaries 3) Awareness of confinement 4) Causation -Psychological/economic threats arent enough Defenses 1) Consent 2) Self-defense 3) Reasonable force in course of arrest 4) Assumption of risk 5) Children -Child can only consent to insignificant matters

Comparative Negligence/Fault -Pure, Mod 51 (P barred if greater than D), Mod 50 (P barred if equal or greater) Assumption of the Risk -Express: Consent to accept risk is freely given (doesnt extend to collateral risks, can be invalidated if found contrary to public policy) -Implied Primary: P accepts by engaging in activity with knowledge it entails certain risks -Implied Secondary: P knowingly and voluntarily chooses to encounter Ds risky conduct

Duty to Rescue -No duty unless law imposes special relationship or D caused the harm (even if non-negligently) Special relationships -No duty to control 3rd party Exceptions: Exclusive control of D, Reasonable Person must be foreseeable -Objective standard. -Exceptions: Necessary to avert -Lower standard for children (but not when danger (Target IDed by 3rd party doing adult activities (Tarasoff), D facilitated commission -Disability lowers standard to reasonable of crime, D breached promise to person with that disability warn P) Calculating Risk Landowner Liability -B<PL -Traditional categories: Custom 1) Invitees: Remove traps -Relevant & persuasive but not dispositive 2) Licensees: Warn of traps -Departure from custom can show neg. 3) Trespasses: Dont set traps -Weak argument if custom contradicts Attractive nuisance statute Cause-in-fact Statutes/Regulations -But for Ds conduct, what -Neg per se if 1) law designed to protect happens? against type of harm that occurred and 2) P -a but-for, not the was in class of people protected by law -Joint liabilityAll Ds fully liable if -Excuses: Necessity, capacity (i.e. minor), 1) joint tortfeasors 2) 2 inability to comply, emergency independent tortfeasors, harm -Irrebuttable presumption individually 3) 2 subsequent torts, Res Ipsa Loquitur harm indivisible 1) Event usually doesnt occur w/o neg 2) -Alternative Liability cause within exclusive control of D 3) Not -Market Share Liability due to voluntary act of P -Substantial factor test -Shifts burden to D for circumstantial -Lost opportunity evidence Proximate Cause -Smokes out evidence with multiple D -Three views 1) Harm within the risk Contributory Negligence (foreseeability) -Affirmative defense, burden on D 2) Causal connection -Complete defense to neg 3) Policy judgment (Andrews) -Created ameliorative doctrines (LCC, W&W, -For proximate cause 1) must G&S) increase risk of harm AND 2) harm must be within risk

-Intervention of 3rd parties: Liable only if ordinary and natural -Four categories of unforseeability 1) Extent of harm (D liable; eggshell) 2) Manner of harm (D liable) 3) Plaintiff (D not liable; Palsgraf) 4) Type of harm (Fork!: Directness of harm, degree to which it resembles an unforeseeable type or extent NIED -Impact rule: Physical harm req. -Zone of Danger: P must be in zone of danger being harmed by D -Closely related bystander (Dillon): 1) P located near accident, 2) witnessed, 3) closely related Economic Harm -Ds conduct causes financial loss not resulting from injury to person or property; most courts dont find duty Damages -Pain and suffering: Cognitive awareness required? -Loss of enjoyment sometimes separate from P&S -Collateral Rule -Loss of Consortium -Wrongful Death v. Survival Actions Strict Liability -Foreseeable risk -Dangerousness, uncommonness Abnormally Dangerous Acts -Social utility? Know Restatement factors Vicarious Liability -Scope of employment Products Liability Manufacturing defects: P must show 1) departed from intended design 2) caused injury -Failure to warn: Foreseeable risks could have been prevented by warning Design Defects: Consumer expectation test: Product defective if it fails to perform as safely as a consumer in Ps position would expect it to Risk Utility Test: Defective if benefits of design outweighed by cost