Comm Law pt. 2

Tort

Civil wrong causing someone to suffer a loss, injury, or harm

Facet 1

Plaintiffs case in chief

Facet 2

Defendants case in chief

Facet 3

Remedies (Usually punitive, compensatory, equitable)

Tort of Wrongful Interference with Contractual Relationship - Facet 1

1) Valid, enforceable contract between two parties

2) A third parties knowledge of contract

3) Third party intentionally causes either of two parties to break the contract

Tort of Wrongful Interference with Contractual Relationship - Facet 2

1) Privileged Interference

2) Res Judicata

3) Statute of Limitations

Res Judicata

Cannot try same case twice; Double Jeopardy for civil cases

Duty of Care

Everyone must act as a reasonably prudent person would act which means in a matter that does not pose a risk to others (speeding), Judge decided

Special Duties of Care

Parent/Child, Doctor/Patient, Inkeeper/Guest, Schools/Student, Employer/Employee, Landlord/Tenant

Landowner Duties: Trespass

No duty of care UNLESS land possesses some feature attractive to children, then must ensure children do not have access

Landowner Duties: Social Guest (Licensee)

Duty to warn of any dangers reasonable guest is unlikely to see

Landowner Duties: Public Guest (Invitee)

Landowner must warn of any dangerous conditions AND inspect and erect any safety measures necessary

Duty of Care: General Rule

There is no duty to help someone in peril

Breach of Duty of Care

Acting in a way to cause another to be hurt

• Factual matter, so decided by jury

Modified Breach of Duty of Care

1) Children (lowered standard)

2) Physical Disabilities (lowered standard)

3) Emergencies (lowered standard)

4) Superior Skill/Knowledge (higher standard)d

Reasonableness Test (Duty)

• Probability that the harm will occur

• Seriousness of the harm

• Cost of taking precautions to reduce the risk

Actual Causation + But For test

But for the defendants conduct, plaintiffs injury would not occur

Proximal Causation

Only those injuries that are reasonably foreseeable consequences from the defendants actions

Foreseeability Test

Was the harm foreseeable? Could the defendant have anticipated the harm? Was there a direct connection between defendant and harm?

Superseding Cause

Injury/harm happening after initial act (not liable)

Tort of Fraud: Standard of proof

By clear and convincing evidence (80-85%)