Legal Framework Important Terms & Definitions

Stare Decisis

Courts must follow past decisions when dealing with similar cases

Vertical Stare Decisis

Lower courts m

Horizontal stare decisis

A court must

Binding stare decisis

A prior legal decision that a court must follow by law

Persuasive stare decisis

A prior legal decision that carries weight and may influence a judge, but is not mandatory to follow

Erie Doctrine

A legal rule in the US that requires federal courts to use state substantive law and federal procedural law when handling cases based on diversity jurisdiction

Subject-matter jurisdiction

The legal authority of a court to hear a specific kind of case or legal topic

Personal Jurisdiction

The legal authority of a court over the actual people or companies involved in a lawsuit. Court needs proper connection to the defendant— lives in/connected to territory

4 Federal Questions

Cases arising under the US Constitution, cases arising under federal laws, federal regulatory issues, cases arising under treaties

District courts

The general trial courts in the federal system

Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction

The federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over some areas

Concurrent Federal Jurisdiction

If Congress does not so provide and the area is one over which federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction, they share it w/ state courts

Diversity Jurisdiction

“Diversity of citizenship” and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000

Diversity of Citizenship

Occurs when 1) The plaintiffs are all citizens of a state or states diff. from the state or states of which the defendants are citizens, 2) When a foreign country brings an action against citizens of the U.S., or 3) When the controversy is between citizens of a state and citizens of a foreign country

Exclusive State Jurisdiction

State courts have exclusive jurisdiction over matters that the constitution or congress did not give to federal courts. ex: property, torts, contracts, also 75k or less are in this court only

Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction

Federal crimes, bankruptcy, patenets, copyright, etc.

Substantive Law

Defines people’s rights and duties

Procedural law

Rules governing how the lawsuit/court process works

Plaintiff

Voluntarily gives the court jurisdiction by filing the lawsuit

Defendant

The court must independently have a valid basis for exercising jurisdiction over them

In Personam

Over the person

In Rem

Based on property

Attachment Jurisdiction

Defendant’s property is attacged/seized to establish jurisdiction

Issue of fact

A dispute between the parties regarding the events that gave rise to the lawsuit

Issue of law

A dispute between the parties as to what legal rules apply to these facts. Issues of fact are decided by the jury

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Federal courts can hear state law issues as long as both issues are arising out of the same nucleus of operative facts

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Happens when a person or business in a position of trust fails to act in the best interests of the person or group they serve

General Jurisdiction

Defendant can be sued in their home state, even if the claims are unrelated to their home state

Tag Jurisdiction

You can be sued (served) in any state

Tort Liability

Involuntarily assumed as imposed by the law

Tort Law

Gives persons redress from civil wrongs or injuries to their person, property, and economic interests

When is a tort committed?

1. A duty is owed by one person to another, 2. There is a breach of that duty, 3. The breach of duty proximately causes injury or damage, 4. The injury or damage is suffered by the owner of a legally protected interest

Vicarious Liability

A legal principle that holds one person or entity responsible for the wrongful actions of another based on their relationship. Ex: Delivery Driving: A delivery driver runs a red light and hits a pedestrian while making a company drop-off. The delivery company is held [ ] for the driver's negligence

3 Types of Tort Liability

1. Intentional 2. Negligence 3. Strict Liability

Battery

Intentional harmful or offensive bodily contact

Assault

Intentional act causing another to reasonably apprehend imminent harmful/offensive contact

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Liability when defendant intentionally or recklessly engages in extreme/outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress

Defamation

Plaintiff must establish 1. False and defamatory statement about P, 2. Publication to a 3rd party, 3. In some cases, special harm/damages

Invasion of Privacy

1) Appropriation of a person’s name or likeness, 2) Unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, 3) Unreasonable public disclosure of private facts, 4) Unreasonable publicity that places another in false light in the public eye

Negligence

Failing to exercise reasonable care, creating an unreasonable risk of harm. Unlike an intentional tort, the defendant does not intend the harm

Duty of Care

A person is under duty to all others at all times to exercise reasonable care for safety of others

5 Elements of Negligence

• Duty: The defendant owed a legal obligation to act with reasonable care toward the plaintiff (for example, a driver must follow traffic rules).

• Breach: The defendant failed to meet that standard of reasonable care through an action or failure to act.

• Cause-in-fact (Actual Cause): The injury would not have happened "but for" the defendant's specific action or omission.

• Proximate cause: The resulting injury was a foreseeable and direct result of the defendant's breach, without unexpected interruptions.

• Harm (Damages): The plaintiff suffered an actual, measurable loss, such as physical injury, property damage, or medical bills

Breach of Duty

Happens when a person or group fails to follow a legal responsibility to act with reasonable care, causing potential or actual harm to others. Example: Car Accidents (Negligent Driving): Drivers have a duty to obey traffic laws and watch the road. A driver who texts on a smartphone, runs a red light, or speeds breaches that duty. If they hit another car, their breach of duty leads to personal injury claims

Duty to Act

You usually have NO legal duty to rescue someone whose danger you did not create.

So something can be morally wrong but not legally negligent. You do have a duty in the case of some special relationships

Examples of Special Relationships

Mother—> Child, Airline—→ Passenger, Innkeeper—> Guest

Second Restatement (Duties of Possessors of Land)

1) Not to injure trespassers intentionally

2) To warn licensees

3) Exercise reasonable care to protect invitees against dangerous conditions unlikely to discover

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Permits the jury to infer both negligent conduct and causation

Types of Trespassers

Undiscovered Trespassers

• Definition: A person who enters property without permission and whose presence is completely unknown to the property owner.

• Duty of Care: Very low. The owner has no duty to inspect the land, make conditions safe, or warn of dangers.

• Restrictions: The owner must not engage in intentional misconduct, willful/wanton behavior, or set deadly traps to hurt someone. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Discovered Trespassers

• Definition: A person on the property without permission whose presence the owner actually detects or learns about.

• Duty of Care: Higher than for unknown visitors. The owner must use ordinary care in conducting activities.

• Warnings: The owner must warn the trespasser about known, artificial, hidden dangers that pose a risk of serious bodily injury or death and are not easily seen

Licensee

Enters with permission, usually for personal/social reasons
→ Owner must generally warn about known dangers the licensee is unlikely to discover.

Invitee

invited onto property for a public or business purpose
→ Generally owed the greatest duty of reasonable care. (Patron at a grocery store, students living on campus housing, customer at post office) Standard is higher because you have to warn of anything that should be reasonably known 

Contributory Negligence

Failure of a plaintiff to exercise reasonable care for his own protection, which in a few states prevents plaintiffs from recovering

Comparative Negligence

Legal principle that reduces a plaintiff’s financial recovery in a lawsuit or insurance claim based on the percentage of fault they contributed to an accident

Pure Comparative Negligence

Allows an injured party to recover damges even if they are mostly at fault, with their payout reduced by their exact percentage of blame

Modified comparative negligence

Allows recovery only if the plaintiff’s share of fault falls below a specific threshold (50% or 51% rue)

Assumption of Risk

Express assumption of risk is a defense to an action based upon strict liability; some states apply implied assumption of risk to strict liability case

Good Samaritan Statutes

Protect people who voluntarily offer emergency help to others from being sued for accidental injury or wrongful death—> not a full scale shield

Negligence Per Se

A person is presumed negligent because they broke a specific safety law or regulation