BUS Exam 3

civil wrong

wrongful conduct by one person towards another and monetary compensation is sought

• Intentional
• Nonintentional
• Strict Liability

intent to engage in conduct that results in harm, not intended to harm.

(negligent, accidents, carelessness)

liability without fault, everything is done to make it safe and someone gets hurt

injury can be compensated by money

intentional deceit for personal gain.

confining someone to a limited area, usually for an unreasonable amount of time for an unreasonable amount of questioning.

false statements of facts that tend to injure people in their reputations

• Appropriation
• Seclusion
• False light
• Public Disclosure of Private Facts

using someone's name or likeness (face, voice, signature) forcommercial purposes without their consent

an intrusion into an area where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy

falsely attributing beliefs, attitudes, memberships, etc. to someone and holding them out in a false light

someone says something about another person that is true, but it doesn't need to be known by the whole world.

(intentional torts, defamation) written defamation, or recorded

(intentional torts, defamation) oral or verbal defamation

• (no punitive damages!) failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would under similar circumstances.
• (no injury= noliability for negligence)

• Res Ipsa Loquitur
• Good Samaritan Laws
• Dram Shop Laws

presumption of negligence; plaintiff usually isn't negligent, when something doesn't usually happen (like a sack of flour randomly falling fromthe sky on your head), if the defendant can disprove it then they're off the hook (unlikely).

people try to help others in events of peril; prevents someone from suing the “good samaritan” for saving their lives even though they accidentally injured them somehow in the process.

(a dram is a small drink) when someone comes into a bar or party and get intoxicated and then go out and gets injured or injure someone, the bar owner/host (and owner of house if they weren't there) can be held liable; designed to protect other people from being injured

• -misstatement of material fact
• -known falsity
• -intent to Deceive/induce reliance
• -actual reliance
• -justifiable reliance
• -damages (resulting injury)

someone says something not true (including omission of evidence!) about an important piece of information that someone would use in making a decision.

the person knows the statement to be false OR they should know OR they have the reason to know OR they're reckless to not know it.

intends to make a statement that people will believe

the person hearing the statement believes it and then takes action based on that belief

relates to the reasonable customer; would a reasonable person have come to the same conclusion had they heard the same statement

typically a contract tort where the contract is reversed

Prove all the elements!!

• -intentional confinement
• -no justification

intending to put someone in a limited area and injury happened to occur.

no probable cause or belief that someone did something wrong

Consent: if someone agrees to the confinement then it's not false imprisonment unless they revoke their consent during the confinement and they aren't released.

• -false statement of fact
• -defamatory meaning
• -about plaintiff
• -publication
• -damage to reputation

statement is capable of being true or false and the statement is false

statement that tends to injure someone in their reputation

the statements needs to be about the plaintiff

someone other than the plaintiff has heard the statement (at least one person)

injury to reputation

• -the truth
• -opinion
• -privileges*
• *absolute privileges
• *qualified privileges (made in good faith? To only people with a need to know? If both are false then it doesn't count)
• -public figuresd

what someone thinks and is not able to be proven true or false (it's an opinion if it's false)

people have the privilege to say what they need to in official proceedings and they are protected, even though the statement is damaging to reputation

statements that can be damaging, but has to be made in good faith or for a reasonable belief and isn't revealed to a large amount of people.

someone who puts their selves in public light; they are required to prove malice (known falsity, or reckless disregard for the truth) in order to win a case.

• -Interference with contract
• -Interference with Perspective Economic Advantage

• •Potential relationship NOT A CONTRACT (A-B)
• •Knowledge (by C)
• •Intentto disrupt (by C for C's advantage)
• •Actual disruption
• •Damages

• •Contract (A-B)
• •Knowledge (by C)
• •Intent to induce breach (by C for C's advantage)
• •Actual breach
• •Damages

• •internet service providers can't be sued for these things because there is way too much information to process
• •companies that aren't service providers (don't change or edit the information) also can't be sued because they also have a crapload of information to process

• -Duty of Care
• -Breach of Duty
• -Causation:
• *Cause-in-fact
• *Proximate Cause
• -Damages/injury

duty to act as a reasonable person under certain circumstances

the careless act results in injury (if there was no careless act then there wouldn't be an injury)

you can't recover for negligence if the actor couldn't foresee the possible injury

can only recover for damages IF SOMEONE WAS HURT (physical or emotional or mental or financial)

• -assumption of risk
• -superseding cause
• -contributory negligence
• -comparative negligence

• known risk (normally associated with the event) voluntarily
• undertaken

• intervening event that is not the defendant's fault or in the
• defendant's control, then the defendant isn't held accountable for those.

• involves the plaintiff's negligence, if the plaintiff is negligent
• too, then the plaintiff can't recover anything

involves the plaintiff's negligence, if the plaintiff is negligent too (but not as much as the defendant), then they can recover for damages based on how much wasn't their fault in percentages (if it was 70% the defendant's fault, then they get 70% of damages)

• -landowners are expected to exercise reasonable care to protect people who come on the property from harm
• •if someone is harmed and you knew about it and didn't tell them (they fall on a loose stair) then you can be sued. If you didn't know about it, then you can't be sued.
• •non-trespassers: someone invited on the property that are injured
• •trespassers: aren't invited and are injured
• •homeowner should protect against hazards they know about or should know about(no matter what the intentions)
• •you can't defend ONLY your property with deadly force

• •storeowner has the responsibility to exercise reasonable care to prevent reasonably foreseeable risks
• •if they know about a hazard or it's been there for a really long time without warning and the hazard is foreseeable, then they are responsible if someone is injured because of that hazard

• always compares apples to apples
• Ex: ask another doctor what they would
• do in that situation, not a random person