Intentional Torts (∆ is liable for X if:)

Battery: ∆ (1)acted (2)intending to (3)cause (4)harmful or offensive contact [1-(direct or indirect) 2-(intent v. dual intent, substantially certain) 4-(offensive to
reasonable sense of personal dignity, eggshell doctrine, contact to things closely attached to body)]
Assault: ∆ (1)acts (2)intending to (3)cause harmful or offensive contact or imminent apprehension of it and (4) causes imminent apprehension and (4)∏
reasonably believes is a present ability to inflict it . [2-(intent or S/C), 3-(be careful of indirect here, ∏ must be aware) 4-(apprehension of imminent not future
contact)] Go for assault on every battery. Intent xfers, need only show ∏ was aware of imminent battery.
FI: ∆ (1)acts with (2)intent to confine, which (3)results in confinement and (4)∏ is conscious of confinement or harmed by it [1-(direct or indirect), 2-(confine within
boundaries fixed by actor), 4-(harm is dignitary, so conscious of confinement suffices) Shopkeeper Defense-(reasonable detain for reasonable time upon
reasonable belief —mistake ok) susceptible to implied consent]
IIED: ∆, by (1)extreme or outrageous conduct, (2)intentionally or recklessly (3)causes (4)severe emotional distress [1-(transcends bounds of decency, objective
std. subject to some circumstances (racial slur in special relationship was enough, no eggshell, but knowledge of fragile state may apportion extreme/outrageous),
2-(reasonably certain works, intent may xfer to ∏ family if present & ∆ knows of presence), 4-(w/o bodily harm, courts more careful - tends to look for history of
treatment not Jones)]
INTENT: Intent xfers between all to all, except IIED, eggshell all but IIED, intent vs. Insurance or Workers Comp: [TX Ass&Bat: intend, know, reckless +harm]
Defenses to intentional torts (Most affirmative with preponderance burden, but consent sometimes attack against prima facie, instead of affirmative)
Implied Consent - conduct reasonably understood as consent (circumstances relevant, reasonably understood as manifested. view from ∆)
Medical/Informed Consent - ∏ must show (1)∆ failed to inform adequately of material risk before securing consent (2)being informed would have not caused no to
consent (3)uninformed risks manifested due to unconsented treatment
Emergency Action w/o consent: Valid defense if: emergency makes it (1)necessary or apparently necessary, in order to (2)prevent harm, to (3)act before opp. to
get consent and actor has (4)no reason to believe that one unable to consent would not consent if had opportunity.
Scope of Consent: No more than consented to. EXCEPT: Medical -> internal: Dr. has implied consent for anything in area of orig. cut, when sound prof.
judgement determines correct surg. procedure is to extend scope. valid as consent
Consent in Custom [sports] - Consent to near all in game, either allowed or tolerated by rules - but so reckless beyond range of ordinary in sport - no consent
Consent to Crim behavior - Some JX - Yes. Some JX: Cannot consent to criminal. Texas: Cannot consent to criminal (to avoid liability)
Duress kills consent: Duress and special relationship considerations. Fraud kills consent: Fraud as to act. inducement ok [i.e. Iʼm rich, sleep with me - sex is act
- consented to sex. But fake Dr. get consent for exam. act is intercourse. consent by fraud]
Lack of Capacity kills consent [Intox, diminished mental ability, minors]
Defensive Force (self or others) [no deadly force]: Actor can use (1)reasonable force (2)not intended or likely to cause dearth or serious bodily harm to defend
himself or others against unpriv. harmful or offensive contact or other bodily harm when he reasonably believes other is about to intentionally inflict on him. No
duty to retreat. [deadly force] same statement but, to use deadly force must reasonably believe other about to inflict intentional contact that will put in peril of death
or serious bodily injury which can safely be prevented only by immediate use of such force. [no retreat in dwelling place-unless also place of others][duty to retreat
if accurate or reasonable belief that, with complete safety, retreat or relinquish exercise of right or priv. (other than as above)][force not in excess relative to attack]
JX SPLIT of Defense of Others Majority: if defense of other is mistaken belief, defense not avail. Minority: Mistaken belief re: need to intervene is avail
Defense of Property: Privilege to use force necessary for protection of property, must request desist or believe request will be useless or substantial harm done
before can be made (force to cause death or serious bodily harm never ok) ((spring gun)
Necessity: (in saving life or property) justifies entry onto anotherʼs property. Where such necessity taken, actor likely liable for actual damages for use
Parental: Priv. by parents to use reasonable force. Some JX extend to teachers and schools officials
Legal Auth: Public officials have priv to detain, contact, trespass w/ limits: police restrained to detain by reasonableness(4th amnd), harm to prop may be subject
to comp under takings clause
Imputing CIF (Liability)
Cause in Fact / Actual Causation
general - act can cause specific - did cause harm
Proving General Causation (Scientific)
Daubert (no longer frye, where evid. must be generally accepted by experts) - admitted when: evid. based on
testable theory or technique, which has undergone peer review, technique - has known error rate and
Overdetermined Underdetermined Market Share Liability
standards of control?, underlying science generally accepted) - General is threshold, must still prove specific (A&B Cause) (A or B, not both cause) If ∏ cannot prove which of
Proving Specific Causation three or more “persons”
Housley: good health->accident then bad health. if reasonably possible causal connection between accident 2 or more indeterm, neg. 2 nearly simultaneous, caused the injury but that all
and injury. “actual causation met” acts (i.e. delete one harm similar neg. causal. Indep could have; court require
Probabilities: Not enough to show CIF
Circumstantial may be enough w/ general same) - indep, actual committed, only 1 of 2 each ∆ to pay percentage
cause - each sufficient to caused, but nature of ∆s based on their market share
Strict Liability at the time of the injury.
cause acts prevents ∏ from
Look for when: Animals, dangerous substance or instrument, or something escaping form land (Pharma and few other uses)
Strictly Liable when: ∆ʼs conduct caused the harm THEN Joint and Several knowing which caused: (Sindell)
Policy: Who should bear expense of the injury? Liability (check compare/ Burden Shifts to ∆s Market def (US, state, or
- Or, what company in best position to assess risk and determine insurance need area)
- Essentially negligence, where duty breached upon causing harm. contrib neg) (Summers v. Tice)
- Distributive Justice
Animals:
Common law: those that possess, confine, manage animals capable of harm to persons/property held strictly
liable when animals escape and cause harm
Vicarious Liability
- 2-3 Categories = Wild Animals, Livestock, Domestic (dog, cat, housepets) - domestic maybe not strict unless Joint Enterprise
owner knew of dangerous propensities of animal
- Rstmnt 3d is strict liability on wild animals and abnormally dangerous animals Respondeat Superior Two or more join together
- Livestock and domestic prob. not strict liability w/o knowledge that abnormally dangerous Master/Servant in enterprise, which each
- Must still cause harm (tripping on lion not strict liability alone)
Escape from Land - If bring something on land, strict liability to keep it contained (i.e. water reservoir) “Masters held vicariously liable for torts of their has equal right to control
- UNLESS done out of necessity or contemplated in original grant
- Cases: Strict liability yes - built reservoir, broke, caused water damage off property. no - well site run-off servants committed while in scope of employment” others conduct.
basin built, leaked onto other property with damage run-off basins necessity of TX oil biz M/S relationship - consensual, where one performs Negligent conduct of one
Abnormally Dangerous Activity
- ∆ does abnormally dangerous activity strictly liable for all harm resulting to kind of harm that makes activity services for another and master controls/right to is imputed to all others
abnormally dangerous (gas truck crashes - strict liability if explosion, not if damage only from truck impact)
- Factors to determine “abnormally dangerous” - control conduct of servant. (Need not be paid. ) Elements:
agreement (express or implied to do
- Existence of high degree of risk - of some harm to person, land, chattels Generally no indep contractors enterprise)
- likelihood that harm that results from it will be great
- inability to eliminate risk by reasonable care Indep or Emp: distinct op or biz, skill req. in part. manifest intent to be associated as join
- extent to which activity is not a matter of common usage joint interest, by contribution
- inappropriateness of activity to place it is being done at operation, time employed, method of payment and by degree of joint proprietorship
provisions for sharing profits and losses
- extent to which value to community is outweighed by dangerous attributes time or by job Generally: formal K establishes biz
- Not applicable if but-for ∏ʼs abnormally sensitive character there would be no harm
- Rstmnt 3d: abnormally dangerous = strict liability for harm resulting from activity Scope of Emp test (factors): act commonly done by (sharing of profits and mutual control)
- abnormally dangerous is: activity creating foreseeable & highly significant risk of harm even under
reasonable care AND activity is not one of common usage servants of sort in part. case, previous M/S BUT: Injured ∏ from car crash - ∏ trying
to hold passengers responsible for driverʼs
relationship, if master has reason to expect action, neg. Defense use also: ∆ use to

Theories of Tort Purpose and Policy similarity in quality of act to authorized act, belief in establish contrib. neg. against ∏ʼs
passengers
Corrective - one who wrongfull injures another must make them whole M/S relationship?
Instrumental - Incentives to act carefully in future
Law and Econ - about reducing cost of accidents efficiently Master liable for indep. K when - negligent in Family Purpose: Many states - Judicially
Social Justice - Public policy / Social control - police conduct of others developed special rule, which under
Distributive Justice - Aim to restore individuals that which they are entitled
choosing, training or supervising, some duty out of certain circumstances, imposes vicarious
Enterprise liability - accident cost should be internalized by activity and distributed among participants in it relation, work specifically, pecularly, or inherently liability upon automobile owners for harm
Pragmatism - Tort law is product of each situation - No robots on bench, personalities matter caused by persons to whom the cars have
Critical Theorists - tort law dominated by [feminist - gender roles & power] [race - racial dynamics and power] dangerous been loaned or made available
 Reasonable Person
Generally, must conform to that of a reasonable person
under the circumstances (composite of communityʼs
judgement)
Circumstances Considered:
Physical (ie blind) - yes vs. mental (low iq) - no
- but if mental illness sudden w/ no warning - likely
Emergencies - yes (conform to act as reasonable
would under emergency
Knowledge & Skill - If so possessed beyond most
others, then are circumstances
Kids - <5 - no negligence, >5 then act as reasonably
careful kid of same age, intelligence, experience: BUT
when child in dangerous activity chara. taken by adults,
held to adult standard
ill rule - >14 - rebuttable presump. of adult, 7-14 -
presump of unable to meet adult std., under 7 - no
negligence
Nuances to Possessor duty
Firefighter rule - licensee, may bar recovery if in official
capacity
Recreational use - allowing public use -> partially
immunized form liability
Duty to Off-prop (urban - natural cond. liable, rural -
no_
Lessor/Lessee - Generally no - but if warr. of habit,
hidden dangers known to L but not T, lease for public
use, common areas (stairwells,etc), negligent repairs
Possessors of Land
Duty re:Land (Invitee/Licensee/trespasser most->least)
I. Invitee (Pub invitee- member of public invited to enter for purp. for which land is open biz invitee -
invited to enter/remain purp. direct/indirect connected w/ biz dealings with possessor)
A. liability for condition that caused physical harm if:
1. knows or by reasonable care would discover condition and that it involves unreasonable
risk
2.should expect invitee not discover or realize danger or fail to protect themselves
3.and fails exercise reasonable care to protect
II. Licensee (consent to be on property)
A. liability for condition that caused physical harm if:
1. knows or reason to know (reasonable person can infer) of condition and should realize
unreasonable risk to licensee, and should expect they not discover or realize
2. fails to exercise reasonable care make condition safe or fail to warn of condition and risk
3. licensee not know or have reason to know of condition and risk
III. Trespasser (no priv. to enter or remain)
A. refrain from wanton and willful (no duty to unknown trespasser)
B. Constant trespasser (artificial conditions only)
1. liability for bodily harm from artificial condition if (1)poss. created or maintains (2)to his
knowledge likely to cause death or s.b.h. to tress. and (3) such a nature reason to believe tress.
not discover it. AND possessor failed to exercise reasonable care to warn of condition and risk
C. Known Trespasser (artificial condition which involves risk of death or s.b.h only)
1. liability for s.b.h. from artificial condition if (1)knows or reason to know of presence in
dangerous proximity to condition, and condition of such nature he reason to believe tres. not
discover or realize risk
IV.Attractive Nuisance: liable for injury to trespassing kids (JX: Any v. under 14.. some age diff)
A. know or reason to know kids trespass, condition know or reason to know unreasonable risk, kids
do not discover risk or realize risk (because of age), utility and burden slight v. risk, and possessor
fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate danger or protect kids from
" Nuances
Duty
Special relationships that up duty
Common Carrier - protect against unreasonable harm and give first aid after
know or reason to know ill or injured and to care until cared by others
(Innkeeper)
Assumption of duty - required by law or voluntarily takes custody under
circumstances such as to deprive of normal opp. for protection under similar
duty
Master/Servant, Fam., Store/Customer, hotel/guest, school/pupil, Jailor/
Prisoner
Reliance creates duty - if practice known, educated reliance upon, any
unreasonable practice or abandonment w/o notice violates duty
Duty to rescue - no general duty, but act w/ due care if undertaken (deters
others from rescue)
Duty when you cause harm - If you cause harm, duty to assist (liable as to this
duty only if/for injures directly result from failure of this duty)
Duty to Warn others - Tarasoff - Dr. duty to warn 3rd about threats - dr. held to
reasonable similar professional under similar circumstances
Statutorily Imposed Duty
Limitations of duty
Despite clearly foreseeable harm, duty lowered where:
Guest Statutes (lowered duty of operators of motor vehicles to passengers)
No duty to rescue or prevent harm (where no relationship exists)
Minimized duty to prevent purely economic harm
Minimized duty to prevent emotional distress
Minimized duty to prevent harm to fetus
Actions of govt. officials in their official capacity lower duty to them
Lowered duty of family member to each other
Lowered duty of on-duty police or fire against negligent persons

Prox cause care about direct and foreseeable harm

Failure to act according to Breach - Was harm direct result of negligence?
Prox. Cause
Reasonable standard - Was harm foreseeable? (Was ∏ foreseeable?)
Custom - Negligence must CAUSE the harm. TX Cause Std - substantial factor
Breach of duty is shown if there is a customary practice, and it
was ignored Foreseeability (Varying Standards - Palsgraf most common
B<PL Test Not necessarily conclusive but: If proof of custom and it was
ignored, and departure was prox. cause of accident, may Liability
Burden < Prob of Injury x gravity of Loss (injury) establish liability. No harm foreseen Exact harm foreseen
If B<PL, then there is a duty to take on the burden, failing to
Adhering to custom is not necessarily enough
do so is a breach of duty Causal connection ! -----|---------------------|----------------|------------ "Foreseeable
Custom must have been current when act occurred
Policy may trump custom to harm Some harm foreseeable General type of harm
Medical Profs: Custom less important. More of foreseeability (Even a very small amount) harm foreseen
Foreseeability - duty or proximate cause? i.e. glacoma test case. Think defensive medicince
Palsgraf - The risk reasonably perceived defines the duty owed. Polemis Palsgraff (Cardozo)
Wagon Mound II Wagon Mound I
Negligence Per Se Res Ipsa Loquitor (the thing speaks for itself)
!
Violation of statute serves to show duty/breach (subject to cause/ Restatement 2d
Accident alone is prima facie for duty/breach - show cause/carm
harm findings) Palsgraff – Andrews dissent
Trad: Fact finder may draw permissible inferences of neg. from
Ask 2 questions circum. when (1)ordinarily does not happen (2)under exclusive
(1)Statute designed to protect against type of accident that actorʼs control of ∆-not always used, and (3)circum. not caused or
conduct caused? contributed to by any act or neglect by injured party.
(2)Was the accident victim within class of persons statute designed Most states - creates enough evid. to get to jury Foreseeability Factors -Palsgraf-Cardozo foresee of harm, degree certainty ∏ would be injured, causal
to protect (Third Rstmt Rule: Fact finder may infer that ∆ has been negligent proximity from act to injury, moral blame of ∆ʼs conduct, policy prevent future harm, burden to ∆ and
JX on Neg. Per Se: when accident causing ∏ʼs physical harm is a type of accident that community to impose duty, availability, cost, prevalence of insurance for risk.
Majority - Is negligence per say (as matter of law) ordinarily happens as a result of the negligence of a class of actors Foreseeability - Andrews Dissent - If ∆ʼs conduct is (1)substantial factor in bringing harm to another, that ∆
Minority - Evidence of negligence (Jury decides) of which the ∆ is a relevant member and ) neither (2)did//should have foreseen extent of harm or manner it occured does not prevent liability. But
Small Minority - rebuttable presumption of negligence (prima facie) Ybarra - burden shifting. Someone in room was negligent, every not legal cause if, ((1) looking back from harm, it appears (2)highly extraordinary that should have brought
May not apply where: instrument in control of∆s. Distributive justice. about the harm.
vague or amorphous - OSHA reg - dry floors “so far as possible” However, Res ipsa only when ∏ canʼt know or doesnʼt have Lost Chance Doctrine - Applies where ∆ is dying or already diminished chance of survival. Reduction or
Disprop. liability - i.e. reqʼing person to report child abuse access to facts. elimination of ∏ʼs chance of better outcome, ∆ liable for that loss (“the lost chance”) - trad. 50% better of
Licensing Statutes - Failure to be licensed not usually neg. per se: If ∆ does not maintain a very high level of exclusive control, res living - JX, now: ∏ can recover either (1)loss of substantial chance, (2)increased risk (3) “pure chance or
However, will be held to standard of care of what you held self out ipsa less likely proportionality, where ∏ recover on showing nexus btwn failure to diagnose pre-existing and lost chance
to be to recover to reasonable degree of certainty. Maj/TX: “more likely that not cause” Min: trad. - 51% rule
Note: Statute giving private right of action Rescuers generally foreseeable (reasonable act under circ. / similar manner of rescue) - if this, rescuer
not contrib. negligent.
Affirmative Defense to Negligence Breaking Causal Chain: - intervening cause complicates - is a superseding cause if breaks chain
Foreseeability still measuring stick. Rescuers, med. negligence (not gross), ambulance acc. all
Contributory Negligence - ∏ totally barred from recovery, even if ∏ʼs negligence far less than ∆ʼs. (even 1% at fault) foreseeable. Criminal Conduct generally not foreseeable - but special relationships or prior notice change
- However, ∏ʼs negligence must be actual and proximate contrib. cause of ∏ʼs harm for claim to be barred or reduced Court limiting liability on unforeseen harm - foreseeability is P/C issue. If harm foresee but no liability -
- Contrib not a bar when ∆ʼs actions are = {intentional, reckless or grossly negligent, last clear chance applies, ∏ too remote or not PC} duty issue.
- Assumption of Risk - implied assumption of risk treated same as evaluating ∏ʼs negligence vs. ∆ʼs.
- Last Clear Chance - Allows liability despite contrib negligence. Negligence and foreseeability, but no liability (Limitations of foreseeability)
- If accident victim by own negligence placed himself in danger of injury at hands of other when he is unable to prevent.
- AND other knows or should know of victims peril in time to avoid injury and fairs to exercise ordinary reasonable care, then other is Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress - Prox. cause limited by different tests:
guilty of actionable negligence and Vʼs actions will not bar recovery under contrib. negligence defense. (1)Impact Zone Rule - No duty to prevent emotional harm, needed impact - Found condom, stom. pain,
Comparative Negligence - Factors: (1)Nature of conduct of each party at fault, (2) extent of causal relationship btwn conduct & damages faint now inclusive under broader view of test - Minority JX
- Pure Comparative - allows damaged party to recover even if 99% at fault; Damages = 100% — ∏ʻs fault (Some JX) (2)Zone of Danger - Modification of (1). must be in zone of danger of neg. act (physical harm close)
- Modified Comparative Fault - bar from recovery if ∏ʼs comparative fault is either 50% or 51% - by JX (3)By-Stander Liability (Two Tests - Dillon (Maj JX) - factors, La Chusa - elements,
- If not barred, ∏ʼs recovery reduced by degree of fault Dillon - Balancing: Is ∏ near scene of accident, did shock result from direct emotional impact (sensory
- Nuances and contemporary observance, where ∏ and V closely related
- No Last Clear Chance Avail La Chusa - Elements (1)closely related, (2)present at scene at time and is aware of inj (3)suffers
- Joint and Severally Liable usually abrogated (though Uniform Comp. Fault Act keeps) serious emotional disturbance
- Comparative no defense in intentional or reckless conduct by ∆ (4)Direct Victim - ∆ owes direct duty of care - often where ∆ communicating with family re: injured
- If multiple ∆ʼs, in modified comp. JX, ∆ʼs combined fault must be more than ∏ʼs (and not individ. more) to allow recovery Used in negligent handling of corpses, or any where there is special relationship
- Comparative fault complicates determination (defense) of superseding causes. Jury can allocate fault and consider effect of No Mental Anguish cause of action in TX, may get awards based on, but canʼt bring alone
superseding causes Loss of Consortium - usually wrongful death. (wife & baby) Compensates spouse for loss or deprivation
- Crashworthiness and Product Liabilities - how comparative fault measured, if at all, when defect enhances injury in crash of companionship/partnership. Non-economic damages. Not available if not married - Not available for
- Criminal conduct of ∏ may act as complete bar child/parent. Prenatal Harm: trad rule - first breath, new rule: viable, wrongful death statute (TX use)
- If one of many ∆ʼs is immune but partially at fault, his share apportioned to other ∆s equally (JX specific nuances, as well) Wrongful birth/life (w-full birth action by parents, w-full action by kids) - only awards special damages, not
Assumption of Risk (AOR)= (a)knowledge, (b) appreciation, (c) voluntary exposure of risk No AOR defense for intentional torts general - will compensate for diff. between normal life and life got - not between life and no life. (i.e. if w/
- Express AOR - express, explicit agreement to risk (waivers, releases special needs - compensation is for those needs, not for the birth/life itself).
- Exculpatory Agreements disfavored. Alone, not violate public P. But if agreement includes AOR for intentional tort, gross neg., Purely Consequential Economic Loss - when acting negligently - is pure economic loss foreseeable?
negligence to minors, or involves hospitals - may be violate public policy as matter of law and not valid. Trad. rule for recovery (TX JX) - no recovery for pure economic loss w/o physical injury or prop. damage
- Agreement must (1)Clearly spell out intention of parties (2)nothing in social relationship between parties militating against Modern: Recovery in some instances (i.e. oil spill in bay (distributive theory award), special relationship,
enforcement, and (3)not against public policy People express: reasonable measure to avoid risk to particularly foreseeable identifiable class of ∏s
- Negligence which caused injury must be reasonably related to object or purpose for which release given whom ∆ knows or reason to know likely to suffer such damages from conduct
- Public Policy disfavors unequal bargaining power (housing, blanket waivers, medical consent(?))
- Implied AOR - (Primary & Secondary) More Affirmative Defenses to Negligence
- Primary - assumption of risks not created by negligence; engaging in activity that has known and commonly accepted risks Avoidable Consequences - After ∏ injured, some damages may be barred by ∏ failing to take reasonable
- no liability to ∆ when ∏ chooses to engage in activity with inherent and commonly accepted risks steps to avoid aggravation.
- i.e. Getting hit with baseball at ballpark. Some states only to conduct after tort, others allow application to ∏ʼs pre-injury avoidance measures
- Affirmative Defense or Denial of Duty? If impliedly assuming known risk, argue abrogation of duty. (Strategic as to burden too) such as seatbelt use (JX)
- Secondary - Assumption of existing negligently created risk May be avail. in comp. or contrib. JX Premises Liability - Duty to secure against crime Old rule: duty again imminent harm from violent, New
- ∏, aware of risk created by ∆ʼs negligence, continues voluntarily to encounter it (ice skating case - too slick, kept skating) rule: foreseeability vs. burden
- Two types: Pure/strict - Assumption is reasonable (running into burning house for kid) Qualified - not reasonable (same but for hat) Statutes of Limitation and Repose - IF EXAM HAS DATES, check SOL/R
- Pure strict is AOR but not Contrib neg. / Qualified is AOR and Contrib. neg. - SOL for negligence 2-3 years, depending on JX
- Pure/Strict - no fault, JX may still bar recovery / Qualified - fault and may be barred or proportionally reduced - Discovery rule - extends SOL when negligence first discovered (not nec. when harm discovered)
Immunity - (Exam Alert) Immunity also likely not available in intentional torts - Statute of Repose - does not allow discovery rule (SOL begins on negligent act)
Govt Immunity - If decision discretionary, better chance of immunity, FTCA - federal tort immunity only for “discretionary acts”, state likely - Usually for construction of buildings, I.e. if industries allow to use discovery rule may be excess. liab.
similar immunity to federal, municipality likely not as broad as (i.e. police failed to protect person from abusive friend - liability) - Collateral Source Rule - Canʼt look at additional sources of compensation (why should ∆ benefit from
Charitable Immunity - Very few states (NJ, for one), theory - protecting financial assets of charities, AOR, also avoiding hurts to help employerʼs ability to give health insurance)
Family Immunity - Not avail in most JX, but one spouseʼs behavior to another must be outrageous. Par. Discipline and Discretion is
usually immune. (i.e. choosing food/housing/medical services)