§1 Intent Specific intent – person acts with purpose of producing  Minors are liable for intentional torts to

that consequence the same extent as adults. Exception:

General intent – person acts knowing the consequence tender years
is substantially certain to result (volitional act;  Mentally ill persons may be held
subjective) responsible for their intentional tort
 Mistake does not negate intent  liable
Battery (1) Intent to cause harmful or offensive contact,  Crowded World Theory
§13 Harmful or an imminent apprehension of contact;  Eggshell/Thin Skull Plaintiff
Contact (2) Contact is harmful or offensive;  Extended Person Rule
§18 Offensive (3) Bodily harm OR offense resulted (what would
Contact be offensive to an ordinary person?)
§21 Assault (1) Intent to either cause harmful or offensive contact or put someone in imminent apprehension
(2) The actual contact is incomplete
(3) The defendant has the apparent ability to carry out the threat
(4) Caused reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery
*Words alone do not constitute an assault because no reasonable apprehension or imminency
§35 False (1) Acts intending to confine the other or a 3rd  §36 What constitutes confinement;
Imprisonment person within fixed boundaries, AND confinement is complete even if there is a
(2) His act directly or indirectly results in such reasonable means of escape, unless the
confinement of the other, AND other knows of it
(3) The other is conscious of the confinement or  §39 Confinement by Physical Force §40
is harmed by it Confinement by Threats of Physical Fore
 §41 Confinement by Asserted Legal
Authority
 Voluntary submission negates
imprisonment
 Length of time period is immaterial
§46(1) (1) Conduct must always be extreme and  Factors: frequency, asymmetrical
Intentional dangerous (objective) relations, special vulnerability, does not
Infliction of (2) Harm must always be severe include rudeness
Emotional (3) Intent can be intentional OR reckless  Exception: special duty of common
Distress carriers and innkeepers
§46(2) IIED If directed at a 3rd person, liable if
Liability to (1) member of immediate family present at the time, whether or not results in bodily harm, OR
Bystanders (2) any other person present if bodily harm
§158 Trespass to Liable for trespass irrespective of harm if he  Mistake does not negate intent
Land intentionally  Must be physical/tangible invasion
(1) enters the land or causes a thing or 3rd person
to do so, OR
(2) remains on the land, OR
(3) fails to remove something he had a duty to
remove
§217 Trespass to (1) Using or intermeddling with chattel in the position of another
Chattels (2) Intentionally
§218 Liability to (3) Without consent or privilege
Person in (4) Damage
Possession *Mistake does not negate trespass
§222A Intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of
Conversion another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel.
 Factors: extent & duration, intent to assert a right inconsistent with P’s ownership, good faith,
amount of actual interference, any harm, inconvenience or expense caused
Transferred As to plaintiff vs. as to tort
Intent Applies to 5 physical torts: battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattels
Intentional Torts
PRIVILEGES: defenses for defendants to claim against intentional torts

Self Defense (1) Reasonable belief as to the apparent  §63 can use force to defend yourself but
necessity (subjective) it cannot be deadly
(2) Reasonable use of force is permissible  §65 can use deadly force only if
(proportional to the harm threatened) threatened with deadly force
§76 Defense of others If the actor correctly or reasonably believes that
(1) The circumstances are such that the 3rd person would have privilege of self-defense, AND
(2) His intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person
Defense of Property §84 Can use device not intended to cause death or bodily harm if
(1) The use is reasonably necessary and
(2) Reasonable under the circumstances
§77 Can use reasonable force not intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to prevent or
terminate an intrusion upon land or chattels if
(1) Intrusion is not privileged
(2) The actor reasonably believes the intrusion can be prevented or terminated only by force,
AND
(3) The actor 1st requests the other to desist, or the actor believes that request will be useless
Recovery of Property §103 Timeliness of Recaption – must act promptly 4 Storeowners’ Privileges
§104 Necessity of Demand – must ask other to (1) reasonable belief of unlawful taking of
give up possession of chattel, except where the property
actor believes a request to be useless (2) detention and questioning done in
reasonable manner and time
(3) summon appropriate authorities
(4) reasonable mistake is allowed
§892 Consent Consent can be manifested by action or inaction and need not be communicated
 Actual vs apparent consent
 Consent is limited in scope to the consent given
 MD can go beyond scope in 4 emergencies
Necessity  2nd Restatement §196 Public Necessity  D is not liable for damages
 §197 Private Necessity  D is liable for damages
Authority of Law Privilege to arrest with or without warrant to prevent felony or breach of the peace
 Qualified immunity doctrines apply unless officer violates clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights
 Mistaken identity – burden of proof officer arrested only after due diligence
Discipline of Children 2nd Restatement §150 Factors to determine whether force or confinement reasonable
Justification Interest in our society to uphold and protect defendant from liability
NEGLIGENCE: situation where a person negligently causes personal injury or damage and is subject to liability
§3 Negligence A person is negligent if does not exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances. Factors:
(1) Foreseeable likelihood
(2) Foreseeable severity
(3) Burden of precautions
§303 Act is negligent if actor intends it to affect/ realized/ should realize that it is likely to affect another, in
such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to the other
Learned Hand Formula If B < P*L then we expect D to have taken the precaution  D is liable
DUTY: compare the actions of the person to what a reasonable prudent in those circumstances needs to do
§7 Duty An actor ordinarily has a duty to exercise reasonable care if their conduct creates a risk of physical harm
§6 No Duty Rule An actor is liable for negligence, unless the court determines the ordinary duty of reasonable care is
inapplicable
§9 Emergency What would the reasonable person in that emergency do?
§13 Custom Compliance – evidence actor is not negligent but does not preclude a finding of negligence
Departure – evidence of negligence but does not require a finding of negligence
§10 Children What would a reasonably careful person of the same age, intelligence, and experience do?
Exceptions: <5yo cannot be negligent; if engaged in adult/inherently dangerous activity
§11 Disability Physical – what would the reasonable person with that physical disability do in those circumstances?
Mental – what would the reasonable prudent person do? (regular standard – mental illness not taken into
account; unless sudden incapacitation
§12 Professionals What would an ordinary member of the profession do under the same the circumstances?
(higher knowledge *Need expert testimony to establish standard of care + departure if not common knowledge
or skills)
§14 Negligence Per An actor is negligent if commits unexcused violation of a statute  (1) P is in statute’s “protected class”;
Se (2) statute intended to protect that incident; (3) appropriate to impose liability?
§15 Excused Violations & §16 Statutory Compliance
§37 No Duty for Exceptions: §38 – statute; §39 – continuing risk; §40 – if special relationship have duty within the scope of
Risks not Created by the relationship; §41 – if in special relationship with person posing risks have duty to 3rd party within the
Actor scope of the relationship (duty to warn, mental health professionals)
Privity of Contract Exception: third-party beneficiary contracts & if have public duty
§54 Duty to Off- Artificial – have duty of reasonable care for artificial conditions
Premise Claimants Natural – have duty if commercial land; if not, have duty if possessor knows of the risk or if it is obvious
*factors to gauge reasonableness*
§51 General Duty of Except to flagrant trespassers, land possessor owes duty of reasonable care to all entrants on the land
Land Possessors
§52 Duty to Flagrant Duty to not act in an international, willful, or wanton manner; but has duty to exercise reasonable care if
Trespassers trespasser imperiled and (1) helpless or (2) unable to protect him- or herself
BREACH: proof of negligence
Direct evidence Someone saw with their own eyes what happened
Circumstantial Constructive knowledge: when a person is legally presumed to know something simply because they “should
evidence have” known it
§17 Res Ipsa May infer defendant is negligent if (1) type of accident ordinarily happens as a result of negligence and (2)
Loquitur defendant is the relevant member  permits an inference of negligence & rebuttable resumption
CAUSATION IN FACT: “but for” test
§26 Factual Cause Tortious conduct must be a “but for” factual cause of harm for liability to be imposed
§27 Multiple Concurrent causes: (1) multiple acts; (2) neither alone sufficient to cause injury; (3) jointly + severally liable
Sufficient Causes Sufficient factor test: (1) multiple acts; (2) each alone would be sufficient
§28 Burden of P has burden of proof; UNLESS multiple actors engaged in tortious conduct that exposed P to risk of harm
Proof and the conduct of 1 or more caused harm, but P cannot reasonably be expected to prove which actor
caused the harm  burden of proof moves to D
PROXIMATE CAUSE: scope of liability
§29 Limitations An actor’s liability is limited to those harms that result from the risks that made the actor’s conduct tortious
on Liability for
Tortious Conduct
Directness Theory Was plaintiff’s injury directly caused by defendant’s breach?
Foreseeable Was plaintiff’s injury a reasonably foreseeable consequence of defendant’s breach?
Theory
 §31 Preexisting Eggshell plaintiff rule – D is liable for all harm even if not expected due to preexisting physical or mental
Conditions & condition
Unforeseeable
Harm
§34 Intervening When a force of nature or independent act is also a factual cause of harm, an actor’s liability is limited to
Acts & those harms that result from the risks that made the actor’s conduct tortious
Superseding *Superseding = unforeseeable  DOES break causal link  D not liable
Causes *Intervening = foreseeable  does not break causal link  D still liable
DAMAGES
§47 NEID to direct Liable if conduct (1) places other in danger of immediate bodily harm & the emotional harm results from the
victim danger; OR (2) occurs in the course of activities especially likely to cause serious emotional harm
§48 NEID to a 3rd Liable if third person (1) perceive the event contemporaneously, and (b) is a close family member
Person
Pure Economic Cannot be recovered under negligence
Loss
DEFENSES: defenses for D to limit damages or bar any damages
Contributory P also breached duty of care and was negligent
Negligence 1. Contributory Negligence System – if P’s conduct contributes to the cause of their injury then there is a bar
on recovery (exception: last clear chance doctrine)
2. Comparative Negligence System – apportionment of damages based on fault of parties
§2 Assumption Expressed: a contract absolving person from liability bars P’s recovery  does not allow P to assign a % of
of Risk responsibility to any party or other person (*6 Tunkl factors public policy argument for not enforcing*)
Implied: diminished recovery to P if (1) P specifically had actual knowledge of particular risk; (2) appreciation of
its magnitude; (3) voluntary encountering of the risk
Statutes of Discovery doctrine: cause of action accrues when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the
Limitation negligently inflicted injury
VICARIOUS LIABILITY: imposition of liability upon the principal for the acts of their agent with whom that person has a special
relationship
Respondeat Superior Employer is liable if employee acting within the scope of employment commits a negligent, willful, or
reckless act (contrast with suing for direct employer negligence)
Exception: coming and going rule
Exception to the exception: foreseeable dangers with risks arising or related to work
Frolic v. Detour Frolic – substantial personal trip  employer not liable
Detour – slight deviation not far removed in time, distance, or purpose employer liable
Factors: (1) intent; (2) nature, time, place; (3) time; (4) work employee hired for; (5) incidental acts
expected; (6) freedom employee has in job
Independent Contractors One engaged to perform a certain service according to his own methods and manner, free from
(employer not liable) control and direction of his employer (*independent contractor vs. employee factors*)
Nondelegable Duties Certain responsibilities that courts cannot be delegated to an independent contractor
Joint Enterprise Vicarious liability may be imposed upon those engaged in a joint venture where (1) agreement with
(2) common purpose to (3) enhance their pecuniary interests and they have (4) equal control
JOINT TORTFEASORS
Joint and Several Liability Each D is liable for the harm they caused (several) AND the ENTIRE amount of damages (joint)
Proportionate Several If D is responsible for >25%, then he will be severally and jointly liable. But if <25% responsible, then
Liability the max amount required to pay will be 25%
Contribution When a joint tortfeasor was found several & jointly liable and paid total damages, can sue the other
tortfeasor for the amount owed
Indemnity Shift entire costs to other tortfeasor
STRICT LIABILITY: “catch all” – unifying theme that there is liable without fault of the defendant
Animals §21 Trespassing Animals; §23 Abnormally Dangerous Animals; §22 Wild Animals
§20 Abnormally 2nd Restatement: (1) existence of high degree of risk of harm; (2) great likelihood harm will result; (3)
Dangerous Activities inability to eliminate risk by exercise of reasonable care; (4) activity is not common usage; (5)
inappropriateness of location; (6) value to community outweighed by danger attributed
3rd Restatement: (1) activity creates foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical care despite
reasonable care; AND (2) the activity is not one of common usage