Barbri mbe answers

Torts: set 1
To establish a prima facie case for invasion of privacy involving public
disclosure of private facts about the P the P must show that the
publication was of private information about the P and that its public
disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. There is
no liability for publication of matters occurring in a public place.A
photograph of someone in a public place is not actionable no matter
how widely it is disseminated.
When the tortfeasor is a child, the applicable standard of care
generally imposed by the courts in negligence actions that of a child of
like age, education, intelligence, and experience. This permits a
subjective evaluation of these factors. However, when a child is
engaged in an activity that is normally on that only adults engage in,
most cases hold that he will be required to conform to the same
standard of care as an adult in such an activity.
To establish a prima facie case for invasion of privacy baed on
publication by D of facts placing P in a false light, the following
elements must be proved: (a) publication of facts about P by D placing
P in a false light in the public eye; and (ii) the false light must be
something that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person under
the circumstanced. A false light invasion can happen either on public
or private property. Economics have no bearing on the action,
emotional distress and mental anguish are sufficient damages.
Damages are no presumed in negligence cases; there must be actual
harm or injury. Punitive damages generally are not recoverable in
negligence cases, unless the Ds conduct was reckless, malicious, or
willfull and wanton. Nominal damages are not allowed for negligence.
Even if there is a permissive use statute, one who is held liable for
damages caused by another simply because of his relationship to that
person may seek indemnification from the person whose conduct
actually caused the damage.
Contribution allows any D required to pay more than his share of
damages to have a claim against any other jointly liable parties for the
excess. Traditional contribution rules require all Ds to pay equal shares
regardless of their respective degrees of fault.
Prima Facie case for products liability based on negligence:1) legal
duty owed by D to P, breach of duty( i) negligence conduct leading to

ii) the supplying of a defective product by the defendant), )(( the P may
invoke res ipsa loquitur against the manufacturer if the error is
something usually does not occur without the negligence of the
manufacturer)) actual and proximate cause, and damages
In jurisdiction that distinguish between invitees and licnesees, a
licensee is a person who enters land with the owners permission, for
his own purpose or business rather than the owners benefit. The
owner owes the licensee a duty to warn or make safe dangerous
conditions known to the owner that creates an unreasonable risk of
harm to the liceness and that the licensee is unlikely to discover.
However, the owner has no duty to a licensee to inspect for defects or
to repair known defects..
If slipping or falling are no volatile acts, it cannot be said someone
acted with the intent ot bring upon harm to whoever the person slips or
falls on unless they know with substantial certainty that such harm
wont occur.
A minor child will be held liable for the consequences of his intentional
tortious conduct. An actor intends the consequences of his conduct if
he knows with substantial certainty that those consequences will result
Torts- set 2
To establish a prima facie case for interference with business relations,
the following elements must be proved:1) existence of a valid
contractual relationship between P and 3rd party or a valid business
expectancy of P; 2) Ds knowledge of the relationship or expectance; 3)
intentional interference by D that includes a breach of termination of
relationship or expectancy, and 4) damage to P
A complete absence of consent to a medical or surgical procedure may
often constitute battery, which does not require damages. However, a
nondiscluse of the risks of the procedure is characterized instead as a
breach of a duty of care
A landowner owes a higher duty of care to a child trespasser than to an
adult trespasser. Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, a landowner
has a duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid reasonably foreseeable
risk of harm to children caused by artifial conditions on his property. To
assess this special duty on the landowner 1_ there is a dangerous
condition on the land of which the owner is or wshould be aware 2) the
owner knows or should know that children frequent the vicinity of the
dangerous condition 3) condition is dangerous because a child is

unable to appreciate the risk 4) expense of remedying the situation is

slighty compared with the magnitude of the risk. Child doesnt have to
be lured, the basis of liability is on foreseeability. The lure aspect is
only important as to show that the presence of children should have
been anticipated.
For defamation, communication element may be satisfied if the
communication to the third party ( published) was intentional or
negligent.
For conversion, item doesnt have to be super damaged, you can still
get it if it was substantially interfered with.
A strict products liability action requires P to establish that 1) D is a
commercial supplier, 2) D produced or sold a defective product, 3) the
defective product has the actual and proximate cause of Ps injury,
and 4) P suffered damage to person or property. If the product was
dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer OR a less
danger alternative or modification was economically feasible, the
supplied has supplied a defective product. Furthermore, while some
products may be safe if used as intended, they may still involve serious
dangeried is used in other ways, which courts require supplied to
anticipate reasonable foreseeable uses and misuses. contributory
negligence from the consumer failing to discover a defect or guard
against its existence is not a defence to a products liability action
based on strict liability in jurisdictions that dont apply comparative
negligence. Assumption of the risk is a defense to strict products
liability