NEGLIGENCE: (1)defendant owed a duty of

care to plaintiff 2) that defendant committed a

breach of the duty 3) that the breach was the
actual and proximate cause of injury
experienced by the plaintiff. Plaintiff must prove
each element.
DUTY: Duty of reasonable carebehave in
ways that avoid the creation of unreasonable
risks of harm to others. Negligence law=each
person must act as a reasonable person of
ORDINARY PRUDENCE would have acted
under same standards (i.e.-no speeding, juggling
guns, etc.)EX:Pete rides a bus to work every
day. One day, Dave, the driver of the bus, fails to pay

attention while driving, runs a red light, and strikes a

large vehicle. Pete suffers a broken arm. Pete would file
a negligence lawsuit.First, Pete would have to prove
Dave's duty of care. Since Dave was driving a bus, he
was a common carrier. We know that common carriers
have a duty to act with a particularly high level of care
to keep passengers safe.Second, Pete would have to
prove that Dave breached the duty of care. Dave ran a
red light and struck a truck because he was not paying
attention. That would be a breach of the duty to act
reasonably to keep passengers safe. Third, Pete would
have to prove that he was harmed. He suffered a broken
arm, which certainly counts as damages. Fourth, Pete
would have to prove that the breach caused the harm.
Pete would not have been injured if Dave had been
paying attention. No intervening acts contributed to the
injury. So, we can say that the breach caused the harm.

1) Duty of reasonable care-first part of neg.

claim. 2)Owed? If plaintiff was among those
foreseeably at risk of harm stemming from
defendants activities or conduct, OR special
relationship (like the cop in the classroom).
Duty is usually owed, cases reside largely on
breach or direct link of breach and damages. 3)
Breached? compares defendant to hypo
reasonable person of prudence, focuses on
behavior not mental state. FLEXIBILITY-in
breach generally resides on 1) reasonable
foreseeability of harm-only unreasonable risks.
Seriousness or magnitude of forseeable harm,
as seriousness of harm increases so does the
need to take action to avoid it. Social
utility=more valuable, less likely that it will be
regarded as a breach of duty. Ease or difficulty
of avoiding the risk-superhuman efforts cannot
be made to avoid harm. Neg. Law also considers
personal characteristics of defendant: children
act a certain way, disabled people, etc. Mental
deficiencies do not usually count. Context:
Emergency or under pressure decision, cant act
with as much care naturally.
Premises liability cases(persons on property):
1. Invitees-invitees are business visitors invited
for b purposes (customers, patrons, delivery)
and public invitees-held open to pub. Entry must
be for purpose tho. 2. Licensees-own purposes,
enters with consents. Salespeople, solicitors, etc,
shortcut. 3. Tresspassers-no consent and not
allowed, trespassers are owed no duty of
reasonable care for their safety, only duty to not
willfully and wantonly injure trespassers once
their presence is known.
NEGLIGENCE PER SE: Doctrine, admin regs
and statutes to determine how a reasonable
person would behave. Violation of
this=NPS=breach of duty and plaintiff can win
if 1) was within the group of indivs protected by
statute or law, 2) suffered harm of a sort the
statute was intended to protect against. RELYIN
on existing regs-pest control case.
3) linking of harm to breach =CAUSATION OF
INJURY:

Personal injury: Physical or bodily injuryproven all elements and exp. Injury=comp.
medical and pain and suffering.
Property damage: Real estate or personal prop
like a car, injury.
Economic Loss can also be an injury kind of,
financial harm, etc.
Emotional injury: abandoned impact rule and
now allow recovery for forseeable emotional
injuries standalone-some still want proof of phys
tho. CAUSATION LINK: duty breached,
harm done, but No liability without linkage
between breach and causation of harm: 1) was
the breach actual cause of injury? 2) was the
breach proximate cause of injury 3) what was
the effect of any intervening cause arising after
the breach and helping to cause the injury?

ACTUAL CAUSE: YOU NEED BOTH

-but-for test, the defendant would not have
been hurt but for the breach of duty. If he wasnt
breachin hed be fine. Substantial factor.
-Proximate Cause: defendant is liable for only
the natural and probable consequences. Of his
actions AND/or (due to distance from breach
even given actual causation) SCOPE of
foreseeable risk-duty element, defendant owes
no duty to those who are not foreseeable victims
of his actions.
-Later Acts, Forces, or Events: IF A LATER
ACT is foreseeable, it will not relieve the
defendant of liability. INTERVENING
CAUSE: LATER ACT THAT AGGRAVATES
IS UNFORESEEABLE , most courts hold that it
is an intervening cause. Liability is NOT
ABSOLVED if there is an intervening cause
(unforeseeable event) that produces a
foreseeable harm risked by breach of duty.
Cannot escape liability if foreseeable
consequence came about by unforeseeable
means.
SPECIAL RULES: Certain cause rules, basic
causation. Take their victims as they find
them. liABILE for full extent of victims
injurieseven if aggravated by preexisting
condition or later condition from the case. And
neg. medical care.
RES IPSA LOQUITUR: Neg. may be difficult
to prove because the defendant has superior
knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the
plaintiffs injury. THE THING SPEAKS FOR
ITSELF. 1) defendant has exclusive control of
the instrumentality of harm (knowledge and
responsibility for the cause are probable, then)
2) the harm that occurred wouldnt normally
occur in the absence of neg 3)plaintiff no way
responsible for injury.
Negligence Defenses: COMMON LAW two
defenses to negligence- CONTRIBUTORY
negligence ( plaintiffs, failure to exercise
reasonable care for his/her own safety pennies
on the track) and COMPARATIVE
NEGLIGENCE (PLANTIFFS
recovery=defendants percentage share of
negligence causing the injury plaintiff proven
damages) % of recovery based off of this and
assumption of risk
PURE= PLAINTIFF GETS WHATEVER
THEY GET
MIXED=PLAINTTIFF BELOW 50% GETS
NOTHING
(PLAINTTIFFS voluntary consent to a known
danger, SKYDIVING, YOU CHOOSE AND
THEN U GET HURT)
CHAPTER 1:

Substantive law: sets rights and duties of people as

they act in society
Procedural law: controls behavior of government
bodies (courts) as they establish & enforce substantive
Public law: concerns powers of government and
relations between government parties (ex: criminal
law)
Private law: establishes framework of legal rules that
enables parties to set the rights and duties owed to each
other
Functions of Law
-peace keeping, checking government power
and proclaiming personal freedom, facilitating planning
and the realization of reasonable
expectations, promoting economic growth
through free competition, promoting social justice,
protecting the environment
Case law reasoning: like cases should be decided
alike, precedent
Statutory Interpretation: natural ambiguity of
language difficulties
-plain meaning: what the grammar or
definition say
-legislative history and legislative purpose:
past suggests difference from plain meaning
Statute of limitations: after a certain amount of time
has passed, cant sue anymore
-evidence and testimony deteriorates with time
-statute of limitations was 3 years in civil court,
exceptions: malpractice, injury from unsafe property

In personam
jurisdiction:
Defamation
Residence,
for public
location,
figuresor
Chapter 1 - Nature of Law
ASSAULT:
INTENTIONAL
attempt
activities.
(known
-citizens
to large
or residents
through
of the own
Constitutions - exist at state
and federal
offer
toBase:
cause
harmful
orparts
offensive
Discovery:
You
can
request
more
info
after
the
state(even
if
situated
efforts
or
out
have
of
state),
placed
within
themselves
state
levels (2 functions) (trumps
all)
Set
up
contact
with
another
person,
if
the
pleadings.
Deposition:
one
party
borders
in
process
forefront
isoral
served,
ofexam
contro):
orofconsent
actual
to of
structure of gov. for political
untilwhen
they
attempt
or
offer
causes
a
reasonable
another.
Interri:
set
RFadmission:
yes or
authority
to defend.
maliceknowledge
If qs.
these
dont exist
of falsity
then:
(had
control, Separation of powers,
Federalism
- of
ofserved
imminent
battery
in
the
no apprehension
to
Discovery
can abe
mental
phys
(1)
Presence-being
to know
theywith
were
putting
copy
ofout
the
bs)
recognizing the states power
ofthese
makefacts.
law
in
other
persons
mind.
INTENT=same
as
exam-courts
can
get
involved
in
this.
Vids,
summons and or
complaint
physically
certain areas
recklesswhile
disregard
for truth
photo,
media
requests
as
well.
battery.
ASSAULT
though,
does
not
present
in
the
forum
jurisdiction.
The
physical
To prevent other units of gov. from taking
(entertained serious doubts,
ofif
athe
defendant
in
the
forum
isactually
a cases
Summary
Judgement:
Dispose
of clear
matter
threatened
contact
certain actions or passingpresence
certain
laws
concioulsy
rejected
evidence
basisin
for acquiring
jurisdiction
over
without
areps
trial.
Diff
from demurrer
because
it
occurred=APPREHENSION
isfalse
what
Statutes - laws created bysufficient
elected
of
falsity).
Knowing
oris
him,
no matter
brief his stay
might
be.
involves
factualhow
determinations:
For
sumthe
judg.
Congress or a state legislature
most
importantattempt
causes
fear
reckless.
Clear
and
convincing
(2)
Domicile
(residence)
A person
may
1) no
genuine
issue of
of material
fact
Noalways
question
-Uniform acts (originally
drafted
state
or
anticipation
battery.
Appre=only
evi,
not
just
preponderance.
be
sued
for
all
claims,
regardless
of
where
they
about
fact
2)
entitled
to
judgment
as
a
matter
of
statutes) - drafted by privates;
arent
laws
forbecause
and
immediate.
Threats
inimminent
their
state
of permanent
in
law,
of
these
facts
I OF
win.residence
Partial
canor of
INVASION
PRIVACY:
until legislature enacts arise,
future
cannot
be
liab
for
assault.
the
case
ofbattery
a corporation,
the
state
in
which
it
is
exist.
Directed
Verdict:
Case
away
from
the
Intrusion on solitude or
Common Law - law made
by
judges
from
Also
must
be
reasonable-no
petty
stuff.
incorporated.(3)Consent
to
personal
jury
and
provides
judgement
to
one
party
before
seclusion
of another if the
cases (tort, contract, and agency)
(state
level)
jurisdiction.
Aintrusion
defendant
who
not been
juryIntentional
gets to decide.
I.E-we
have
enough
good
Infliction
ofhas
would
beEmotional
HIGHLY
-Precedents (stare decisis)
- judge
follow
personally
jurisdiction
cana jury so
evidence
toserved
let
thisin
bethe
decided
without
offensive
to
a reasonable
Distress:
So
outrageous
in character,
previous judgement; change
for
public
policy
nevertheless
voluntarily
appear
and
submit
there
is not much
question.
Judgement
individual.
Intrusion
can
be all
extreme
in
degree,
as
to
go
beyond
& social realm Statutes can
supersede
himself
to jurisdiction.
Consentsearch
can be
impliednotwithstanding
the of
verdict:
even
ifof
they
physical=illegal
home,
possible
bounds
decency,
atrocious,
common law
A
state can
that
ajudgement
nonresident
motorist
against,
plz legislate
make
a final
outside
of
body,
or
mail,
or nonphys=tapping
intolerable.
SEVERE
emotional
distress.
Statutory Interpretationusing
its highways
be
deemed
to
have
appointed
jury.
APPEALS
generally
only
look
at
law
phone line, bank account,
Also,
defendant
must
intentionally
or
local
official
as
his Affirm,
agent
to
receive
service

1. Plain meaning of aerrors

law
(stature
made
byharassing
TCs.
reverse,
or
calls. ONLY where of
RECKLESSLY
inflict
distress
in
order
process
in any
action
growing
out further
of the
use of
remand=go
back
to trial
court
for
glossary)
reasonable
expectation
of privacy.
the
the
state. in(4)
Minimum
proceeds
if within
dec.
is
reversed
whole
ormust
part.
tovehicle
be liable.
Reasonable
person

2. Legislative history
or
goals
Pub
disclosure
of
private
facts
Contacts.
Having
sufficient
dealings
ADRS:
Settlement,
Arbitration-submit
the
experience
this
distress-i.e.
notoracan
crazy
Publicizing
private
facts
be

3. Legislative purpose
affiliations
with
the
forum
jurisdiction
dispute
to aor
third
party
and
they
give
a which
binding
IOP-truth
is
not
a
defense,
person
overly
emotional
person.
At

Case Law Reasoning

using
precedent
make
it
reasonable
to
require
the
defendant
to
decision
(oftenpublicity
arbitration
clause
in contract),
here=widespread
minimum,
can
charge
emotional
distress
defend
alaws
lawsuit
brought
inMediationtheofforum
court
annexed
arbitration.

Equity - produced flexible

so
communication
private
details.
if outrageous
behavior
relates
to family.
state.
Hence,
aTypes
defendant
who
has
never
cooperative
communication.
emphasize general moral
views resolution
of through
Pub:
False
light-ifset foot
FALSE
IMPRISONMENT:
Intentional
in
California
may
nevertheless
bewill
to
ARBITRATION-arb.
Agreement
be valid
Offer remedies not in common
law courts,
highly
offensive
to
asubject
reasonable
valid
personal
jurisdiction.
andconfinement
irrevocable
of another
person for an
which only offer money damages
or recovery
person
and attributing
Federal
Court
Jurisdiction:
Diversity
TORTS:
Civilcharactristics
wrong
that isminutes
not
a breach
appreciable
time(few
minimum)
of property
and
beliefs
to of
a
jurisdiction-when
thethat
case
is between
citizens
contract.
Intent:
desire
tohe/she
cause
certain
WITHOUT
consent.
Physical
person
doesornot
hold.

Injunction (restrain),
Specific
of
different
states/citizens
vs.
foreigngovs
consequences
orassertion
subs. Certainty
thatin
TRUTH
is aof
defense
falseand
light.
unfounded
legal
authority
to
performance (perform
contract),
over
75k. Corps=citizens
where
itorisharm
consequences
will
result
from
behavior.
Does
not have
toones
necessarily
Reformation (rewrite
contract),
detain
theisand
plaintiff.
Threat
tobeaof
incorporated
where
it
has
principal
place
Intent
to
kill
an
ex.
defamed=like
some
serious
thing
Rescission (cancel contract)
member
associated
can
stop
them
business
center,
HQ,
control
directfrom
and
Recklessness:
Willful
and
wanton
where
allcan
is lost.
But conduct.
widespread,
Administrative Regulations
and (nerve
Agency
moving
and
also
be
FImp.
coordinate
business
activity
not
necessarily
Concious
indifference
to
a
known
and
not
significant.
Decisions
1)Without
consent
freely
given
nottoof
inbe
activity
based
levels).
proven
substantial
riskCommercial
of harmCitizenship
created
by
the behavior.
appropriation

Administrative regulations
appear
in
same=cannot
face
ofbe
ayou
diversity.
threat
2)Different,
COMPLETE-all
can be
Youthe
know
what
arelikeness:
doing,
but
not
name
or
Defendant
precise form in one removed.
authoritative
source,
Federal
question
jurisdiction-no
set
necessarily
dead
to douses
whatever
happens.
exits must
beintent
stopped,
no
way
for
them
commercially
someones
like statues.
amount.
Constitution,
laws, or
Aware
ofArises
risk.
to get
out name
ofunder
it basically.
3ish)
plaintiff
orthe
likeness,
implying
of
US.
Both
Sub-Matter
juris.
Still
need

Agency decisions - treaties

body
enacting
Negligence:
Aendorsement
failure to useof
reasonable
product
orcare,
service.
must have
knowledge
of
confinement.
personam.
FED
can have
exclusive
regulations is not elected
agencies
have
with
harm
to
another
party
occurringwhich
as
a result.
DECEIT
Proof
of
Shoplifting
often
a (FRAUD):
conditional
privilegemeans
they
have
to
reside
over
it
or
concurrent
internal courtlike structure
(not
legally
Protect
other
against
unreasonable
risks
of
harm.
false
statement
that was
reasonable
cause
and
manner
topower.
suspect
which
means
both
state
and
fed
have
Ifdo
binding)
You
were
acting
like
an
idiot,
not
meaning
toby
knowingly
or recklessly
made
and
for
only
a
reasonable
length
of
time.
its
a federal
question
in to
state
court,
defendant
Treaties made by president
with
foreign
anything
direct
or without
being
aware
of the
defendant
induce
reliance
by
Belief
that
confinement
is
full
isnt
the
to remove.
govts and approved by 2/3has
ofoption
US
harm,
butsenate
still
not taking
proper conduct.
plaintiff,
determinental
justifiable
same
of full
confinement.
Fed
Courts:-Court
of Fed.
Claimsexisted
(vs. US),
Ordinances - the enactments
ofLiability:
countries
and
Strict
Liability
without
fault,
no
need
reliance
of plaintiff
too.
Court
of
International
Trade,
Bankruptcy
municipalities
DEFAMATION:
Tort negligence
of defamation
to prove
intentINTERFERENCE
recklessness,
no
WITH
Courts,
Tax
Courts-decisions
can
be
appealed
on defendants
part, interest
but they in
stillhis
did it. to
Executive Orders powerwrong
normally
comes
PROP RIGHTS:
protects
individuals
FCOappeals.
FCOAs:
No fact
but
FAULT IS NOT
NEEDED
to befinding,
proven.Diff
from legislative delegation
Trespass:
review
legal
conclusions.
13 needs
circuit
reputation(1)
unprivileged
(2)
from
crim
law
where
a fault
tocourts.
proven,
Priority Rules:
Unauthorized/unprivileged
Function
of US
Court
ofproven.
Appeals=hear from
appeals
fault
doenst
need
to( be
publication
of
communication
intentional
intrusion
upon

Federal law > state law

from decisions
of the
fed.
District
courts. but
US
damages,
not
losses
forinsult
victims,
anothers
real
prop.
1)
Physically
one
to
another
counts,
an
is
not to
a

Constitutions > law Punitive

in
domain
and
all
Supreme
Court: Is mainly appellate court.
punish wrongdoers.
entering
thewhat
plaintiffs
land,
2)not
other state laws
Thus
questions
of
law
is
it
decides
on,
pub.)(3)
false
and
defamatory:
untrue
causing
another
to
do
so
(if
u
INTERFERENCE
WITH PERSONAL
case facts.
Certiorari
jurisdiction=supreme
so we

Treaty v.s. federal statute

over
domestic,
chased
someone
on
there)
and
harmful
to but
person(4)
statements
BATTERY:
intentional
get
to hear
the
case
1) validity
of anyand
treat or
most recent is moreRIGHTS:
powerful
ACTUAL
harm
is
needed
for
harmful(bodily
or
stat.depending
has beena injury)
quested,
2) offensive
state
is
concerning
person
(of
andstat.

Statues > conflictingfed

laws
on
ora negligent
trespass.
challenged
astoreckless
against
fed.
Law,
3) any
title, has
(calculated
offend
reasonable
sense
of
concerning:
bear
upon
person
who
legislative delegation
for
validity
PRIVATE
NUISANCE:
right, priv,dignity)
or immunity
is claimed
under fed
personal
touching
of another

Statues/any laws derived

from
Usually
no
phys.
Invasion,
rather,
brought
up
the
case).
TWO
TYPES:
law. Original
jurisdiction
of not
SC:have
Trial to
courtwithout
his consent.
Does
be
delegation > inconsistent
common
interference
law
w
plaintiff
use and
we
hear
itcan
first.
Orig
and
exclusive
(only
us):
LIBELwritten
or
printed
defamation
harmful,
be
offensive.
Intent
for
rules
enjoyment
of land.
Odor,
noise,
battles between
states. Original
only:
foreign
batter=intent
to
cause
harm
or
intent
to
or
other
defaming
in
a
physical
form.
smoke,
Classifications of Law- one
type of lawministers,
can light,
ambassadors,
USvibration.
v state, aliens. State
cause
apprehension
that television,
harm or
hurt
is
INTEREFERENCE
MUST
be classified in each category
v. cits
of
other
states.radio,
Modern
times,
andBE:
imminent.
**transferred
Substantial andintent:
unreasonable.

Criminal law- the govt

prosecutes
CIVIL
PROCEDURE:
internet who
are
libel.
Usually
without
proff
Defendant
iNTEND
the
defendant
intents
to
injure
oneplaintiff
person
someone for committing
a crime.
Adversary
system,
to winMUST
a civil
case,
interference.
or okay.
her
of
special
damage,
presumed
but
actually
injures
another
is liable
toown
the
must
prove
each
element
ofPriv=his
claim
byis

Civil law- obligations

that
private
land
and
lot, individualized.
preponderance
injured.
ofTouching
evidence=
does
existence
notSlander
have
of each
to
SLANDER:
oral
defamation.
parties owe to each person
other
(gov.
too)
Pub=public
in
general
has
factual
element
is more
probable
its
be
actual
physical
touching,
itthan
canGov
be ais

Substantive law- sets

rights
and
duties
per
say=presumed
damages
sustained
this
nuisance.
nonexistence.
You
need
to
prove
your
version
of
or
anything
attached
toforbody.
of people as they acttrap/poison
inallowed=usually
society
party
tothat
seekyour
abatement
pub.
when
statements
the
facts
are
true
and
reading/alliance
Plaintiff
needent
be
aware
of
the
battery
at
Nus.

Procedural law- controls

behavior
of CONVERSION:
of the
law
inoccurs
relation
iscrime,
true. Summons=
regarding
terrible
disease,
time
itis
(i.e-unconcious).
NOT
defendants
intentional
exercise
govt bodies (courts)the
defendant
being
sued,
names
plaintiff
and of
dominion
orof
control
over
BATTERY
if
plaintiff
consents
professionally
imcompetent
or to
sex

Public law- concerns

theofpowers
of
time
appearance.
Copy
plaintiff
complaint.
plaintiffs
personal
prop
without
touching.
Content
must
be freely
and
Pleadings:
the
parties
fileopinion
with
the is
govt and the relations
b/w
govt Documents
and
misconduct.
BE AWARE-pure
plaintiff
consent.
acq. Of
intelligently
given
to
nottheir
be 1)
battery!
court
when
they
first
state
respective
private parties
free
speech,
not
defamation,
has
to
be
plaintiff
prop
(theft,
fraud,
claims
and
defenses:
Complaint-plaintiffs
claim
Consent
CAN
be inferred
from
voluntary

Private law- framework

of legal
rules
of
stolendefamation
prop)
2)
passed
offpurchase
as
Group
must state
remedy
requested.
Answer:
participation,
butfact.
only
what
would
be isit
for parties and theirand
duties
removal
of
plaintiff
prop
(throw
admission
or
denial
of
each
part
of
claim.
not really
a thing.
U cant
defame
the
normal
for that
situation.
Limits on the Power of Courts
out,
moving
car,
etc)
3)
transfer
Affirmative defense=claims are all true but imof

Standing to sue requires

thatCorps
the plaintiff
propemps,
(selling
itnot
away)
officers,
shholders
stilldead.
right.
Counterclaim=new
claim,
an 4)
withholding
(u
cannot
have it) 5)
plaintiff have some attack
direct,
tangible,
and
on
pclaims
existing,
obtain
legal
not
defamatory
either.
One
who
alteration
(effed it
substantial stake in the
outcome
ofdestruction
thePlaintiffor
loophole.
Reply:
response
to def.
repeats=also
liab.
defamation,
up in
some
way)
6) using
litigation.
Motion
to Dismiss:
Gofor
away
the
case isthe
dumb.
plaintiff
prop
(drivin
ur car even

Declaratory judgment
allow
parties
liable
too,
not
distributor.
Canpublisher,
be because
oftolack
of juris.
MOST
tho
u
didnt
say
I
could)
determine their rights
and
duties
evenpriv.
important:
dismiss
for absolute
failure to state
Defamation
or atoclaim
INTENT
exercise
though their controversy
notrelief
upon has
which
can beHERE=intent
granted, demurrer.
So
conditional,
COND:
protect
or further
control
of
property-limited
to
advanced where harm
has Cannot
occurredrecover
and because no rule
what?
of law
SERIOUS
interference.
Defendant
legal relief may be necessary
letslegit.
you win
on the of
facts.
Interests
another. OR statements
is liable for the full value of the
made to promote
property.a common interest
(intracorp). Fair comment, fair and accurate
media reports of gov or pub meetings.