I. What is a tort?

  “A civil wrong not arising out of contract.”

Not individual contracts, but the social contract. “Duties of all to all”?
“Tort” is derived from Latin for “twisted” and from French for injury or wrong (“torquere”).
II.  I: Issue: what is the legal question (or questions) raised by this case?
R: Rule
A: Analysis
C: Conclusion
 
How does a tort become a case?
Tort: latin “twisted” french “wrong” – mostly “common law”, decided by courts. A civil
wrong.
 CA and LO legal systems reflect influence of European civil law: “Anyone who
intentionally or negligently injures life, body, health, freedom, ownership or any
other right of another in a manner contrary to the law shall be obliged to
compensate the other for the loss arising.
 Third restatement most current and in progress
1. Accident Law: cases imposing strict liability on carelessness. Failure to exercise
reasonable care
2. Intentional Torts: Liability is not imposed for negligence, but only upon proof of the
defendant’s intention to invade the legal interest of another.
 
III. Elements:
1. Duty: Is there a duty in this kind of case?  If so, what is the general legal standard for
liability in this kind of case?
 
 
2. Breach: More specific to this case: Did the defendant violate that standard?
More evidentiary.
 
 
3. Causation: Did the defendant’s breach/violation cause the harm?
 
 
4. Defenses: Was the victim/plaintiff responsible for the harm or assume the risk?
 
 
5. Damages: Is the harm legally cognizable? And how do we calculate damages?
 
Walter v Walmart (Me 2000): appeal from $550,000 judgement against Walmart in Maine.
Pharmacist misread prescription for cancer medication, despite Dr. making a determined
effort in prescribing the generic drug name to avoid confusions, and gave P the wrong
medication causing P serious illness. P was rewarded damages of $550,000 which D
appealed and appellate court dismissed.
 Drug: PRESCRIB: chlorambucil (generic) v leukeran (brand)
PHARMA: alkeran (generic) v melphalan (brand) à STRONGER, req Dr
supervision
 748vol # A.2dregional district 961pg # (Meonly state supreme court used just state abbrev 2000)
  Issues: 1. To establish standard of professional care for pharma, does P need
expert? 2. What constitutes admission of liability? (One can ack error w/o ack
liability) 3. When do you need a jury? 4. Was the court objective in instructing the
jury?
 Pro Post: P complaint à trial court with jury à D motion JMOL for lack of expert
evidence and prejudice à state court (superior court) à D appealed à judgment
affirmed
I: Is P delay/failing to see wrong contributory to neg?
R: Maine 14 MRSA 156 (1980) (pg 10) If P’s neg to self is as much or worse than D’s neg à P =
nothing (modified law – old common law was is P had any fault, then nothing for P)
A: Obvi slamdunk for P that D was NEG.
C: P no need for expert
 
DUTY (general legal standard): Duty of reasonable care/prof pharma care and not to be
NEG. Strict liability: Walmart responsible for pharma’s actions as an employee. Expert
required?
BREACH (spec to case, evidentiary): Usually need expert to prove breach, but sometimes
NEG. is so obvi, expert (super costly, atty burden) not necessary. Apology vs Admission:
One can ack error w/o ack liability. Strict liability (anytime mistake made = negligence? Ppl
can make reasonable mistakes, not every mistake is NEG. Sometimes mistakes are
understandable or arise from emergency reactions. Hindsight a mistake = Not NEG.)
CAUSATION (cause of injury): P’s cancer went into remission despite the wrong prescription
DEFENSES (blaming the P): P delay in blood test and follow up with Dr. P didn’t confirm re
prescription
DAMAGES:
 
Basic Civ Pro *GIMF applies to 2-5
1. PRE-DISCOV: Motion to Dismiss: (Fed 12B6) Even if all facts are admitted, still no case
under law (DEMURRER) Can be submitted by both sides
2. PRE-TRIAL: Summary Judgment (S/J): After discov, depos, docs compilation but before
trial, even if all facts are for P, there is no genuine issue of material fact (GIMF) needs to be
settled by jury. No reasonable jury could agree, then no trial, b/c all case is entitled to a
jury. Can be submitted by both sides
3. POST-TRIAL: Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL): request for case to be dismissed since
other party didn’t do their diligence. (Walter v Walmart: D requested on basis of GIMF (lack
of expert during trial), court rules NEG to obvi, no need for time consuming jury or expert,
denied JMOL on basis of GIMF) (Before jury gives verdict)
4. POST-TRIAL: Directed Verdicts and Jury Instructions:
5. POST-TRIAL: Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto/Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict
(JNOV/JNWV): jury’s verdict is unreasonable so judge overturns it
6. POST-TRIAL: Appeal or
7: POST-TRIAL: Motion for New Trial – redo of the trial (~RCE)
 
Negligence: failure to heed a duty of reasonable care that causes an injury to a person to
whom that duty is owed. In such cases P must prove 1. D owes duty of reasonable care; 2.
D breached duty; 3. Breach of duty caused P to suffer adverse effects; 4. Effects are
recognized by law as injury. Cases are common law causes of action: established by judicial
decisions rather than by statute passed by legislature.
 
Stare Decisis: “let the decision stand” court obligated to rely on earlier decisions to guide
legal analysis if 1. Prior decision is rendered by a court with authority to render decision and
bind present court; 2. Issue was resolved in prior decision and not assumed away; 3.
Resolution of issue was necessary in prior decision; 4. Issue from prior decision is in
comparable circumstances to present decision. This promotes reasonable degree of
consistency across decisions within jurisdiction thereby advance basic values like
predictability and comparable treatment.
 
Respondeat Superior: “let the master answer [for the wrongs of the servant]” Employer is
held vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of its employees committed within the scope of
their employment. Primary basis for holding corporations, organizations, and government
entities liable in tort law.
 
Critics of tort law: free market; cripples economy – businesses scared to do things in fear of
being sued
Consumer in favor argue it shields from big companies for irresponsible conduct
 
IV. Concepts:
Respondeat Superior, vicarious liability, strict liability
Multiple Tortfeasors: Causation? Damages?
Comparative responsibility
Lawyers: contingency fees
Procedure: Summary judgment (directed verdict, demurrer), JMOL, JNOV
Burden of proof: criminal vs. civil
Politics, law, and psychology
 
 
Questions for Thursday:
Apply the same elements to Vosburg. What are the issues? The rules?
 
What is the law? Why is that the law? What should the law be?
 
Compare: How is Torts similar to Contract? Different?
Criminal law, Civ Pro, Leg/Reg (administrative law), property, and constitutional law
 
 
V.  Purposes of Tort Law
 
1a. Corrective Justice /Rights and Fairness:
Moral responsibility, moral rights, and matching up victims with their injurers.
Private law conception based on individual parties with a private dispute.
“Making the victim whole”: Restorative Justice, rectification
 
1b. Civil Recourse: explains private structure and process
A right to seek redress and recognition (also a rights/fairness-based approach)
“Getting one’s day in court.” 
Also connected to social redress/social recognition in #5
 
2. Optimal Deterrence/ Efficiency:
Social utility of activities vs. accidents
Public law conception of social good and general welfare
Accident prevention, incentives
“Best cost avoider”: Which party is in the best position to prevent accidents?  That party
should bear liability?
Do the benefits of the activity outweigh its costs?
 
3. Loss Distribution:
Spreading out losses from one victim to society or institutions more broadly
 
4. Compensation for injuries and losses
 
5. Redress of Social Grievances/Social Justice
Public forum for resolving general disputes and truth claims.
Law and order, rule of law
Expressive function of declaring social norms and values
 

Review:
 
If the case was “obvious,” why not settle?  Damages and unpredictability
Torts compared with regulation and social welfare systems, insurance
Torts and civil procedure:
1. Motion to dismiss (12b6 federal, demurrer), pre-discovery
1. Summary judgment: Post-discovery/depositions, pre-trial
2. JMOL: Judgment as a matter of law. Post-trial
1. “Directed verdicts” and jury instructions. Post-trial.
1. JNOV: Judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Post-jury verdict
1. Appeal
 
Burden of production, burden of persuasion (Preponderance of the evidence)
Torts and jury trials
Why do people sue? Why litigate? Rational? Moral responsibility, apologies
 
1. Duty: Is there a duty in this kind of case?  If so, what is the general legal standard for
liability in this kind of case?
2. Breach: More specific to this case: Did the defendant violate that standard?
3. Causation: Did the defendant’s breach/violation cause the harm?
4. Defenses: Was the victim/plaintiff responsible for the harm or assume the risk?
5. Damages: Is the harm legally cognizable? And how do we calculate damages?
 
Strict Liability
Vicarious Liability (v/l): respondent superior à Walmart automatically at fault for pharma
actions. BUT, if pharma acted with malintent, Walmart can still be considered NEG. in
monitoring employee
 
Battery: a purposeful, harmful striking or touching of one by another despite the outcome of
the action. Wrongfulness of battery resides in the intentional touching, not the causing of
physical harm. Requires an actual touching of the victim directly/indirectly by the
wrongdoer (tortfeasor).
Restatement: An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if 1. He acts
intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other, or an
imminent apprehension of such a contact, and 2. A harmful contact with the person of
the other directly or indirectly results
 
Intent requires attention to 1. What the law requires an actor to have intended in order to
commit battery and 2. The sort of evidence that will suffice to prove D acted with intent
Single Intent Rule: 1. Intend contact and 2. Contact was unlawful (type of strict
liability)
Rule in most states b/c lower threshold to prove and stakes in torts cases are
lower so help P bring suit
Dual Intent Rule: Additional requires intend to harm (Rule generally benefits D) If D
intends only contact, but does not intent (or know with substantial certainty)
harm/offense, then there is no liability.
 
Why tort law? 1. Corrective justice, redressing wrongs 2. Provide civil recourse for wrong,
what and why the defendant is obligated to pay P 3. Deter, prevent future wrongs 4. Loss
distribution: compensate those who suffer loss 5. Compensation to those who have suffered
injury 5. Redress for social grievances 6. Mixed system
  
Vosburg v Putney (614-17)
P filed personal injury complaint against D 6/11/1993 for incident that occurred on
6/15/1991: P states that D negligently struck P in the lower lumbar area, directly causing
injuries and damages. D filed motion for summary judgement stating her actions
constituted batter which is no longer actionable under R.C. 2305.111 due to statute of
limitations. Trial court granted motion 1/14/1994. P contends courts erred in concluding
claim as an action against assault and battery instead of negligence.
 Pro Post: Trial court $2,800 à Supreme Court à Circuit Court $2,500 à Supreme Court
à Court? $1,250 à Supreme Court UPHELD
 Issue: Is intent to harm necessary to prove battery? NO
Is unintended harm sufficient to prove battery? (Duty and Breach)
Special Verdict: Jury asked questions by judge, questions come from lawyers w/judge
guidance and approval. Q#6 – harm intended? NO.
 This Q important to D to remind jury before verdict that intent matters and to
overcome hindsight bias
 Rule: Treatise of Law of Evidence "the intention to do harm is of the essence of an
assault" If the intended act is unlawful, the intention to commit it must also be
unlawful.
Single Intent Rule
 Analysis: Social contract/norms. Case shows the importance of jury to bring in
aspect of social norms vs. leg law. Playground example used vs classroom setting for
circumstantial evidence.
 Conclusion: P awarded. Decision UPHELD.
 
Why do battery and intentional torts matter?
 
Purposes of Tort Law
1a. Corrective Justice /Rights and Fairness:
Moral responsibility, moral rights, and matching up victims with their injurers.
Private law conception based on individual parties with a private dispute.
“Making the victim whole”: Restorative Justice, rectification
1b. Civil Recourse: explains private structure and process
A right to seek redress and recognition (also a rights/fairness-based approach)
“Getting one’s day in court.” 
2. Optimal Deterrence/ Efficiency:
Social utility of activities vs. accidents
Public law conception of social good and general welfare
Accident prevention, incentives
“Best cost avoider”: Which party is in the best position to prevent accidents?  That party
should bear liability?
Do the benefits of the activity outweigh its costs?
3. Loss Distribution:
Spreading out losses from one victim to society or institutions more broadly
4. Compensation for injuries and losses
5. Redress of Social Grievances/Social Justice
Public forum for resolving general disputes and truth claims.
Law and order, rule of law
Expressive function of declaring social norms and values
 
Why would you choose to pursue an intentional tort claim instead of a
negligence claim when the damages are the same?
Strategic move for P to file for intentional torts take certain defenses off
the table for D and helps the victims.
 
Difficult to bring NEG re kids but intentional torts is easier b/c if they are old
enough to form bodily contact, they are on the hook for intentional torts
 
I. Tort law as a social contract of rights and duties
Appropriateness, “implied license” in social spaces (playgrounds, schools,
workplaces) Social contract has always been in place to rule tort law
Protection of: bodily autonomy, emotional autonomy, property Tort law
fundamentally and began with protection of person's body, new trending protection
of emotion and peace of mind, and property
 
II. Elements: P must show DUTY and BREACH and prove D did the following
1. Duty: General battery standard Is there a duty? If so, what is the general legal
standard for liability in this case?
Vosburg: what is the “duty” that the law of battery requires generally? Yes.
One has duty not to intend contact with another that is inappropriate (Single
Intent - intend to make contact, not to intend harm)
2. Breach: specific facts Did the defendant violate that standard? Difference school
and playground - social line -- strict liability
3. Causation: Did the defendant’s violation cause the harm? Did expert have
adequate foundation?
Vosburg, the second expert only knows about kick subjective and not objective
and didn’t see the whole picture (fallacy leading the jury to believe kick was
the cause), possible medical malpractice from previous sledding incident and
Dr missing festering wound,
4. Defenses: Was the victim/plaintiff responsible for the harm or assume the risk? Is
the harm legally recognized?
P had duty to protect wound from neg. P contributory neg and assumption of
risk.
Maine 14 MRSA 156 (1980) (pg 10) If P’s neg to self is as much or
worse than D’s neg à P = nothing (modified law – old common law was
is P had any fault, then nothing for P) - not a valid defense in
intentional torts
Certain blaming of victim: (1) consent (2) self-defense
5. Damages: Is the harm legally cognizable? And how do we calculate damages?
I: Is the recovery of damages limited to what was foreseen (subj - did or did not
happen in P's mind)? Foreseeable (obj - reasonable person)? What was
contemplative?
R: Brown v Railway Co: the wrongdoer is liable for all injuries resulting
directly from the wrongful act, whether is could or could not be foreseen. ex
delicto (arising out of wrongs)
A: D is on the hook for unforeseeable damages.
 
III. Battery and Vosburg: What is the duty? The general rule for intent in
battery?
A. TheVosburg rule: Single intent + strict liability
1. Defendant must have intended the contact (but not necessarily harm)
2. The contact was “unlawful” or “inappropriate” (even if the defendant didn’t
intend or know of inappropriateness – See the piano teacher, White v. U. of
Idaho, note 4)
Strict liability: If one intends the act (a kick), then one is categorically liable,
regardless of the mental element, subjective or objective).
You broke it, you bought it. You kick it, you pay for it.
Duty-and-breach combined: You have a duty not to make contact that is
inappropriate.
If you do, then you pay. (Unless you have a good defense? See below).
1. Contact actually occurred.
 
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: One thing happens after another therefore because of this
In for a dime, in for a dollar - a little liable is still liability and that liability can be for more
Thin skill - thin shin - eggshell skull rule
Optimal deterrence
People engaged in unwanted contact will be deterred from doing again and other.
Disincentivize others
Over deterrence
People become too fearful
 
 
B. Cole v. Hibberd (617-18): ironies.
Worse conduct gets D off the hook. Seems bizarre but logical law
D is saying accident was battery whereas P is saying its NEG.
Procedural Posture: Summary Judgment
s/l for neg is 2 yrs, assault and battery s/l is 1 yrs.
Out of fairness, s/l for stronger case is shorter bc (1) P would know and have
the information P needs to file case (2) delay on P where there is no reason (3)
no need to more time to see harm. (4) intent of bringing case by P after delay
(5) evidentiary fairness - closer case is to accident, clearer in minds of parties
and witnesses (6) more cost from delay
NEG given more time bc (1) sometimes P needs more time to become aware
(2) fuzzier cases more time to negotiate and research (3) looser regarding intent
Rules for battery: (1) physical contact (2) harmful or offensive battery
(1) is fulfilled (2) parties are friends and arguably horseplay - D's action was
misdirected inflicting more damage: this is a matter of fact to figure out what is
inappropriate/appropriate on what is offensive
 
Court used judicial economy to dismiss case but there was GIMF - matter of
fact of jury to decide whether there was horseplay of battery
 
 
C. Wagner and the Restatement (p. 625, 627): Governmental immunities and
insanity
 
 
D. Garratt v. Dailey (634)
 
 
 
VI. Defenses:
A. Consent
Burden on plaintiff to show no consent. (655)
 Koffman (656). Qualified immunity and threading the needle.
Note 5: Indiana case.
 
Qualified Immunity:
42 USC Section 1983 (passed 1870)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982): “Objective” test
Plaintiff must show defendant’s conduct “violate[d] clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 
 
Irony/perversity of being the first to litigate: opposite incentives from other torts
structures
“No precedent = no clearly established law = no liability.” 
 
Irvin (2011)
 
 
IV. Categories of Tort Liability/Levels of duties:
1. INTENT OR Knowledge of a substantial certainty of harm/Recklessness
“What did you intend? What did you know?” (Subjective)
Third Restatement, § 1 intent:
A person acts with the intent to produce a consequence if:
(a) the person acts with the purpose to produce a consequence; or
(b) the person acts knowing that the consequence is substantially certain to
result.
2. NEGLIGENCE: Carelessness, Unreasonableness. “Should have known better”
What would the reasonable person have done?
3. STRICT LIABILITY

V. Assault (639)
“Apprehension.” Thick skin rule? Thin skin rule?
 
Football hypotheticals

I. Categories of Tort Liability/Levels of duties:

1. INTENT/RECKLESSNESS (knowledge) OR Knowledge of a substantial certainty of
harm/Recklessness
“What did you intend? What did you know?”  (Subjective)
Third Restatement, § 1 intent: 
A person acts with the intent to produce a consequence if:
(a) the person acts with the purpose to produce a consequence (intent); or
(b) the person acts knowing that the consequence is substantially certain to result
(recklessness knowledge - substantial certainty ).
Vosburg v Putney
1a. Gross Neg - no need to prove risk/intent for harm/offense, action probable to
happen but was VERY neg.
2. NEGLIGENCE: Carelessness, Unreasonableness. “Should have known better”
What would the reasonable person have done?
Walter v Walmart
3. STRICT LIABILITY:
 “You broke it, you bought it.”  It doesn’t matter if you didn’t mean to, or tried your
best to avoid the accident.
Walter v Walmart (Walmart thru Pharma Lovin); Vosburg v Putney (Putney didn’t intend
Vosburg to lose a leg, but Putney becomes strictly liable for action)
 
Review purposes: Corrective justice/civil recourse, social redress, optimal deterrence,
compensation - Vosburg (damages rule - despite having won, all compensation prob lost in all
overhead (atty fees), more overhead than money doing to victim usually - therefore tort law does
provide compensation but very inefficiently), loss spreading.
Judicial economy - allow judges to be gatekeepers bc jury trial is expensive to get rid of small
cases
Assault, “apprehension”- causing fear is not an element; allow someone to sue when threatened
w/o having them to say they were scared (gender construct- males emasculation to confess fear;
uphold dignity while claiming) and “private attorney general” (p. 639) - Use of tort law to
overcompensate victims in places substituting police involvement. When police fail, tort law
comes in.
 
Ironies: when D says they did something far worse than what P is claiming in order to get off the
hook (Cole v Hibbard, Wagner v State)
 
II. Battery (continued)
 
Cole v. Hibberd (617-18): ironies.
 
 
C. Wagner and the Restatement (p. 625, 627): ironies Governmental immunities and insanity
 Utah Governmental Immunity "immunity…waived for injury…caused by a negligent act…
except if the injury arises out of… assault, battery, or false imprisonment" - even if there is a
claim possible, if the neg comes out of assault or battery, it wipes out claims
1. Govt immunity used by government for their own purposes
2. Is insanity a defense? NO
a. Involuntary seizure, cannot make volition act was not on purpose,
insanity is no defense
2. Single intent rule
 
 
D. Garratt v. Dailey (634): “Substantial certainty”
Tort “Intent” includes recklessness? (Deliberate indifference)
 
 
If negligence is usually a sufficient back-up because compensatory damages are calculated
the same way, when do intentional torts matter?
 
III. Defenses:
1. Consent
Burden on plaintiff to show no consent. (655)
Koffman (656). Qualified immunity and threading the needle.
Trial court grants motion of demurrer on claims of gross neg, assault, and battery (battery
w/o assault b/c happened so quickly there was no apprehension)
Issue: Scope of consent to battery? Is consent to a general activity also a consent to
all of the specific things one can imagine happening in that activity?
Rule: 1. VA: Governmental immunity for mere neg.
1. Consent it contextual (matter of fact)
i. Dissent - when participating in sports, consenting to contact
even against the rules
 
Note 5: Indiana case.
Medical contact cases and limited consent?
Mohr v. Williams (Minn. 1905)
 
2. Self-defense:
Haeussler (666)
Safe retreat/Duty to retreat/ “Stand your ground”
Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman/Kenosha
Are these really “defenses”? Or defense’s arguments on battery elements?
 
 
IV. Qualified Immunity:
42 USC Section 1983 (passed 1870)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982): “Objective” test
Plaintiff must show defendant’s conduct “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional
rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 
 
Irony/perversity of being the first to litigate: opposite incentives from other torts structures
“No precedent = no clearly established law = no liability.” 
 
Irvin (2011)
 
 
 
V. False Imprisonment
 
Fojtik (677)
 
Malicious prosecution
 
 
VI. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
 
New cause of action emerges in late 19th century. Wilkinson v. Downton (stupid practical joke
where D tells P that her husband was killed on the job - so outrageous but despite no intent to
cause severe IIED, there is substantial certainty (lowers threshold for P to bring case since does
not have to prove substantial certainty) P would suffer IIED so D liable) and physical
manifestations of trauma.
 
Littlefield v. McGuffey (705-11)
 
Snyder v. Phelps (725)
 
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: later this semester. Trauma for near-misses and
bystanders
  
Review intentional torts.
Irvin: Police and qualified immunity; family separation
Consent and self-defense
False imprisonment
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and First Amendment
Why are intentional torts relevant if compensatory damages are calculated the same? Hard to
bring NEG when there is qualified immunity. Stronger claim, stronger law. More egregious
conduct available through intentional torts, more damage reward. Hard to bring NEG against
children, but in intentional torts, waives spectrum of being a child. Intentional torts also involves
jury sympathy and emotionally move them to reward more. Intentional torts may also take out
certain defenses (vosburg - no contributory defense available in intentional torts). Provides a
way to get a day in court, social redress.
Why not a single broad category, “intentional violations of autonomy”?
 
" A page of history is worth a volume of logic" - Wendell
 
Starting Negligence: Cause of action and also element one must breach
1. DUTY. The Negligence Standard and Strict Liability
 
1. Medieval Forms of Action: Trespass and Case
Trespass: Harm must be direct. Plaintiff does not need to prove fault (strict liability)
Case: Harm must be indirect.  Plaintiff must prove fault (negligence requirement)
 
 
2. Brown v. Kendall (1850): The triumph of the negligence rule
 P and D own 2 dogs that start fighting. D has a long stick and starts beating the dogs to break
them up (good intent). In process of swinging the stick, injures P.
 
ISSUE: Can a D be liable for lawful intent? What is the burden of proof (minor)
Whether or not no fault liability exists. Standard in tort no fault tort law (strict
liability) or NEG?
RULE: Greenleaf: P must come prepared with evidence to show either that the intention was
unlawful or that the defendant was in fault. (2nd part - fault rule) (pg 808) (language also in
Vosburg v Putney 1st half)

Law of trespass - old law (strict liability - new law) and case
 
3. Theories of the Rise of Negligence in the Nineteenth Century
A. Simple morality and rights? 
B. Subsidizing industry by making it more difficult for the injured to win damages
C. Helping the injured by expanding duties to strangers (Rabin, FFTL 57-58)
D. “Modernizing” the writ system into general legal principles