This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Outlines Torts Outlines

Torts Outline Outline

Updated Torts Outline Notes

Torts Outlines

Torts

Approximately 54 pages

This is an outline for Torts. My notes are very thorough. My note-taking process is to type extensive notes on every reading, supplement these notes with notes from class, and then systematically distill them down to outline form, point by point. I received an A in the course, was on Law Review, and am now clerking for a federal judge. ...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Torts Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Torts

Main Outline

Table of Contents

Chapter I: Introduction to Torts- What is a Tort? 5

Chapter II: Negligence and Duties 5

The Injury Element: 5

Alienation of Affections 5

Mental and Emotional Upset 5

Duty 6

General (Unqualified Duty) 7

Qualified Duties of Care 7

Affirmative Duties to Rescue and Protect 7

Premises Liability 8

Pure Economic Loss 10

Duties Arising from Special Relationships 10

Ch. III: Breach Element 11

Differing Standards of Care 12

Defining the Person of Ordinary Prudence 12

Tender Years Doctrine- standard children for under X age 12

Industry and Professional Custom 13

Reasonableness, Balancing, and Cost-Benefit Analysis 14

Proving Breach: Res Ipsa Loquitur 14

Negligence Per Se 15

Chapter IV: Causation 16

Actual Causation 16

But for causation. 17

Cause in Fact- Multiple Sufficient Causes 17

Cause in Fact- Indeterminate Causes- Alternative Liability 18

Cause in Fact- Indeterminate Cause- Market Share Liability 18

Indeterminate Causes- Loss of Chance of Survival- 19

Proof of Factual Causation: Expert Testimony 20

Proximate Cause 20

Intervening and superseding causes 21

General Rule 21

Substantial Factor Exception 22

Rescue Exception 23

Crux of it all: Foreseeability 23

What needs to be foreseeable? 23

Type of injury, not the extent: Thin Skull Plaintiff 23

Foreseeability of the conduct: 24

Foreseeable plaintiff?? NO: Palsgraf 24

Unforeseeable manner of harm: 24

Proximate Cause: Emotional Distress 25

Dillion Rule. 25

Ch. V. Defenses 26

Contributory Negligence- Minority/Old Rule 27

Assumption of Risk 28

Comparative Negligence 30

Governmental Immunity 30

Charitable Immunity 32

Family Immunity 32

Ch. VI. Damages 33

Compensatory Damages 33

Punitive Damages 35

Joint and Several Liability 37

Ch. VII: Strict Liability 38

Maintaining Custody of Animals 40

Abnormally Dangerous Activities 40

Ch. VIII: Trespass and Nuisance 41

Trespass 41

Nuisance 42

Ch. IX: Intentional Torts 44

Battery 45

Elements of a Prima Facie Battery Case : 45

Standard Defenses to Battery and Assault (these work for all intentional torts) 47

Consent 47

Self-Defense 48

Defense and Recapture of Property 49

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 49

Chapter I: Introduction to Torts- What is a Tort?

  1. Tort: special kind of wrong; law has identified this action as one that entitles the victim to ask a court to assist her in her effort to set things right between her and the person who wronged her

  2. Elements of Prima Facie Case: Injury, Duty, Breach of Duty, Causation

Chapter II: Negligence and Duties

The Injury Element:

  1. Tort law compensates physical harm and can compensate loss of wealth and emotional distress (not spiritual loss, loss of opportunity or privacy)

Alienation of Affections

  1. Historically held when a spouse is deprived in rights to the “services and companionship” of other spouse, he then has a case against whoever has interfered

  2. Arguments for

    1. Cannot take away offended spouse’s only legal means to seek redress for the wrongful conduct of a third party who destroys marriage (Bland v Hill)

    2. When spouse is injured you can claim loss of consortium, so why couldn’t you sue for this? (Helsel v Noellsch)

  3. Arguments against

    1. Evolution of this action- began with women as property, compensation was to buy a new wife, later was analogized to servants ; women became less property but then for some reason groups started promoting this as preserving marriages (Dickinson’s concurrence in Fitch)

Mental and Emotional Upset

  1. Recovery for mental and emotional upset from physical injury is not controversial, but mental and emotional upset as a result of defendant’s negligence but with no physical injury is more controversial

    1. Pros- it is a real harm, it is no more difficult to measure than other harms, every right should have a remedy

    2. Cons- we all suffer emotional harm all the time, difficult to measure/easy to fake; flood the courts with litigation)

  2. Impact Rule- no recovery for fright without impact (Mitchell v Rochester)

  3. Zone of Danger- You must be in the “zone of danger”- where you fear for your own safety, to recover. Conclusion reached by balancing social interests- if you are out of the zone of danger, burden is too heavy to say others have a duty. (Waube v Warrington)

    1. Rest. 3d- 46: actor negligently causing ED is liable if conduct “an actor whose negligent conduct “(a) places the other in immediate danger of bodily harm and the emotional disturbance results”

  4. In all cases w/o impact- need to show physical manifestation of emotional distress significant enough that it is prevents you from living a normal life (Hamilton v Nestor, Palmer v Nan King Restaurant)

  5. Dillon v Legg - Zone of danger improperly restricted to those exposed to physical harm. Is extended to those exposed to emotional harm.

    1. Court will evaluate these three factors to indicate whether the accident and harm was reasonably foreseeable

      1. Was the plaintiff near the scene or far away?

      2. Did the shock result from the contemporaneous sensory observance of the accident or just hearing about it later?

      3. Were plaintiff and victim closely related?

    2. Rest (3d) 47- Dillon found in Rest.

  6. Thing v La Chusa (CA): Clarifies Dillon saying that in the absence of impact to plaintiff, damages for ED recoverable only if the plaintiff:

    1. Is closely related to the injury victim

    2. Has a sensory experience of witnessing the event

    3. And as a result suffers emotional distress beyond what would be expected by a disinterested witness

  7. Dilon wanted a flexible rule based on foreseeability and Thing rigified it (Foreseeability doesn’t really matter) .

  8. NOW: Different states have done different things but at least by and large zone of danger is rejected.

    1. No Recovery at all - 0

    2. Impact test- only a handful of states still have

    3. Zone of danger- a dozen or so states still have this

    4. Dillon- plurality of states follow this

    5. Thing- increasing number of states follow this

  9. Direct Victim vs Bystander - Burgess v Superior Court: if you’re the direct...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Torts Outlines.