Question: A product was defective and unreasonably dangerous to consumers. Can a claim based on strict liability be asserted against the manufacturer?

Answer: Yes. To assert a claim based on strict liability against a manufacturer, it must be shown that the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous to consumers.


Question: What must be shown to assert a claim based on strict liability against a manufacturer?

Answer: To assert a claim based on strict liability against a manufacturer, it must be shown that the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous to consumers.


Question: A product fails because of a defect that was present when it left the factory. Can a claim of strict liability be asserted?

Answer: Yes. To assert a claim of strict liability, the product must fail because of a defect that was present when the product left the factory.


Question: What is required to assert a claim of strict liability?

Answer: To assert a claim of strict liability, the product must fail because of a defect that was present when the product left the factory.


Question: Can subsequent suppliers seek indemnity in a strict liability cause of action?

Answer: Yes. In a strict liability cause of action, subsequent suppliers can seek indemnity from parties before them in the supply chain so that the actual party responsible for the defect is held liable for it.


Question: Subsequent suppliers seek indemnity in a strict liability cause of action. Can they seek indemnity from parties before them in the supply chain?

Answer: Yes. In a strict liability cause of action, subsequent suppliers can seek indemnity from parties before them in the supply chain so that the actual party responsible for the defect is held liable for it.


Question: A store reconditions tools and sells them. Does strict liability in tort apply to the store?

Answer: Yes. Strict liability in tort applies to a store that reconditions tools and sells them.


Question: Does strict liability in tort apply to a store that reconditions tools and sells them?

Answer: Yes. Strict liability in tort applies to a store that reconditions tools and sells them.


Question: A storage container explodes due to the builder's failure to inspect for defects. Is the builder liable?

Answer: Yes. The builder of a storage container that explodes will be liable for its own affirmative negligence, such as an awareness of defects in the tank or a failure to inspect for defects.


Question: When will the builder of a storage container that explodes be liable?

Answer: The builder of a storage container that explodes will be liable for its own affirmative negligence, such as an awareness of defects in the tank or a failure to inspect for defects.


Question: A product has a design hazard. The magnitude of the danger outweighs the utility of the product. Is the product defective under the risk/utility test?

Answer: Yes. In the case of a design hazard, the risk/utility test must be applied. Under this test, a product is defective if the magnitude of the danger outweighs the utility of the product.


Question: What test must be applied in the case of a design hazard?

Answer: In the case of a design hazard, the risk/utility test must be applied. Under this test, a product is defective if the magnitude of the danger outweighs the utility of the product.


Question: A warning is only placed on the box of a product, which is commonly discarded. Is the manufacturer strictly liable for inadequate labeling?

Answer: Yes. A defendant is strictly liable for a product if the warning issued to the consumer is inadequate. For example, if a warning is only placed on the box, but the box is commonly discarded, a manufacturer can be found strictly liable for inadequate labeling since he failed to place a warning on the product.


Question: When is a defendant strictly liable for a product?

Answer: A defendant is strictly liable for a product if the warning issued to the consumer is inadequate. For example, if a warning is only placed on the box, but the box is commonly discarded, a manufacturer can be found strictly liable for inadequate labeling since he failed to place a warning on the product.


Question: A product was as safe as possible, consistent with its purpose, and its benefits exceeded its risks. Will an action for strict liability succeed?

Answer: No. An action for strict liability will fail if the product was as safe as possible, consistent with its purpose, and its benefits exceeded its risks.


Question: When will an action for strict liability fail?

Answer: An action for strict liability will fail if the product was as safe as possible, consistent with its purpose, and its benefits exceeded its risks.


Question: A product was being put to an improper use. Is this a defense to a claim based on strict liability in tort?

Answer: Yes. A defense to a claim based on strict liability in tort is that the product was being put to an improper use.


Question: What is a defense to a claim based on strict liability in tort?

Answer: A defense to a claim based on strict liability in tort is that the product was being put to an improper use.


Question: A product was changed or modified after it left the factory. Will a claim of strict liability against the manufacturer succeed?

Answer: No. A claim of strict liability against a manufacturer will fail if the product was changed or modified after it left the factory.


Question: When will a claim of strict liability against a manufacturer fail?

Answer: A claim of strict liability against a manufacturer will fail if the product was changed or modified after it left the factory.


Question: A product is in substantially the same condition at the time the injury occurred as when it was purchased from a retailer. Can a claim based on strict liability be asserted against the manufacturer?

Answer: Yes. To assert a claim based on strict liability against a manufacturer, the product must be in substantially the same condition at the time the injury occurred as when it was purchased from a retailer.


Question: What condition must the product be in to assert a claim based on strict liability against a manufacturer?

Answer: To assert a claim based on strict liability against a manufacturer, the product must be in substantially the same condition at the time the injury occurred as when it was purchased from a retailer.


Question: A chemical factory occasionally emits unpleasant odors that disturb a next-door neighbor. Is this a private nuisance?

Answer: It depends. A private nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right of a particular person (or small number of persons) in the use and enjoyment of their land. Whether the invasion is unreasonable is a question to be determined by the trier of fact.


Question: What is a private nuisance?

Answer: A private nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right of a particular person (or small number of persons) in the use and enjoyment of their land. A thing may be a nuisance because it gives offense to the senses, even though it does not affect the health of the occupants of adjoining dwellings or damage or affect the value of the property. However, a thing is not a nuisance merely because it is unsightly, offends the aesthetic sense, makes the vicinity less attractive, or creates mental discomfort.


Question: A plaintiff moves next to a factory and claims nuisance due to emissions. Will the fact that the plaintiff 'came to the nuisance' defeat the claim?

Answer: No. A nuisance claim is not defeated if the plaintiff came to the nuisance, but this factor should be weighed in favor of the defendant.


Question: How does a court determine if a defendant unreasonably interferes with the plaintiff's use or enjoyment of the property in a nuisance claim?

Answer: In a nuisance claim, to determine if the defendant unreasonably interferes with the plaintiff's use or enjoyment of the property, the court will balance all the factors that weigh in the plaintiff's favor versus those that weigh in defense of the defendant. The jury will then determine whether the nuisance is unreasonable. A nuisance claim is not defeated if the plaintiff came to the nuisance, but this factor should be weighed in favor of the defendant.


Question: A homeowner who works nights cannot sleep during the day because of a faint noise from a nearby factory. Does the homeowner have an actionable nuisance claim?

Answer: No. A hypersensitive plaintiff will not be able to recover for nuisance no matter how great the harm to the plaintiff's use and enjoyment, if an ordinarily sensitive person would not be unduly bothered.


Question: Can a hypersensitive plaintiff recover for nuisance?

Answer: No. A hypersensitive plaintiff will not be able to recover for nuisance no matter how great the harm to the plaintiff's use and enjoyment, if an ordinarily sensitive person would not be unduly bothered.


Question: A legally permitted brick kiln produces fumes that sicken customers on an adjacent property. Is this a private nuisance?

Answer: Yes. A private nuisance occurs when a defendant substantially and unreasonably interferes with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of his or her property. The interference need not directly damage the land or prevent its use in order to constitute a nuisance.


Question: When does a private nuisance occur?

Answer: A private nuisance occurs when a defendant substantially and unreasonably interferes with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of his or her property. The interference need not directly damage the land or prevent its use in order to constitute a nuisance.


Question: A factory's emissions cause significant harm to a normal member of the community. Is this a nuisance?

Answer: Yes. Nuisance occurs if there is a substantial and unreasonable interference with a person's use and enjoyment of his property. The interference constitutes a nuisance if it causes significant harm of a kind that would be suffered by a normal member of the community.


Question: What constitutes a nuisance?

Answer: Nuisance occurs if there is a substantial and unreasonable interference with a person's use and enjoyment of his property. The interference constitutes a nuisance if it causes significant harm of a kind that would be suffered by a normal member of the community.


Question: Is loud noise and bright lights coming from a neighbor considered a private nuisance?

Answer: Yes. Loud noise and bright lights coming from a neighbor is a private nuisance because it is a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of one's land.


Question: Loud noise and bright lights coming from a neighbor interfere with the use or enjoyment of one's land. Is this a private nuisance?

Answer: Yes. Loud noise and bright lights coming from a neighbor is a private nuisance because it is a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of one's land.


Question: A neighbor does not maintain his property, endangering public health, safety, or welfare. Can this be argued as a public nuisance?

Answer: Yes. The neighbor of a person who does not maintain his property may argue that the lack of maintenance is a public nuisance that endangers the public health, safety, or welfare.


Question: Can the lack of maintenance of a property be argued as a public nuisance?

Answer: Yes. The neighbor of a person who does not maintain his property may argue that the lack of maintenance is a public nuisance that endangers the public health, safety, or welfare.


Question: A defendant disrupts the flow of a stream that flows through a person's property. Is this actionable under a nuisance theory?

Answer: Yes. Disrupting the flow of a stream that flows through a person's property is actionable under a nuisance theory if the defendant unreasonably interfered with the use and enjoyment of the plaintiff's property.


Question: Is disrupting the flow of a stream that flows through a person's property actionable under a nuisance theory?

Answer: Yes. Disrupting the flow of a stream that flows through a person's property is actionable under a nuisance theory if the defendant unreasonably interfered with the use and enjoyment of the plaintiff's property.


Question: A person intentionally creates a condition that substantially and unreasonably interferes with a neighbor's use or enjoyment of his land. Can the person be subject to a private nuisance claim?

Answer: Yes. A person who intentionally creates a condition that substantially and unreasonably interferes with a neighbor's use or enjoyment of his land can be subject to a private nuisance claim.


Question: Can a person be subject to a private nuisance claim for intentionally creating a condition that interferes with a neighbor's use or enjoyment of his land?

Answer: Yes. A person who intentionally creates a condition that substantially and unreasonably interferes with a neighbor's use or enjoyment of his land can be subject to a private nuisance claim.


Question: Evidence shows that the aggrieved party did not 'come to the nuisance'. Does this have bearing in a private nuisance claim?

Answer: Yes. In a claim based on private nuisance, evidence that the aggrieved party did not 'come to the nuisance' has some bearing, but it is not controlling.


Question: A factory's actions regarding its emissions are reasonable, but the emissions still cause injury. What is the cause of action?

Answer: If a factory's actions regarding its emissions are reasonable but the emissions still cause injury, the cause of action is nuisance, not negligence.


Question: A public nuisance causes harm to plaintiffs that is different from that suffered by the public at large. Will the claim prevail?

Answer: Yes. A public nuisance is a violation of a legal right that is common to the public as a group, and a claim based on public nuisance will prevail if the plaintiffs sustained harm different from that suffered by the public at large.


Question: What is a public nuisance?

Answer: A public nuisance is a violation of a legal right that is common to the public as a group, and a claim based on public nuisance will prevail if the plaintiffs sustained harm different from that suffered by the public at large.


Question: A factory deliberately releases fumes that cause personal injuries. Can a person sue for damages under a private nuisance cause of action?

Answer: Yes. A person can sue for damages for personal injuries under a private nuisance cause of action if fumes are deliberately released by a factory.


Question: Can a person sue for damages for personal injuries under a private nuisance cause of action if fumes are deliberately released by a factory?

Answer: Yes. A person can sue for damages for personal injuries under a private nuisance cause of action if fumes are deliberately released by a factory.


Question: Can a person sue for private nuisance if dust from a factory unreasonably interferes with the use and enjoyment of their property, even if the plaintiff 'came to the nuisance'?

Answer: Yes. A person can sue for private nuisance if dust from a factory unreasonably interferes with the use and enjoyment of their property, even if the plaintiff 'came to the nuisance' by moving onto land next to an already operating source of interference.


Question: Dust from a factory unreasonably interferes with the use and enjoyment of a person's property. Can the person sue for private nuisance even if they 'came to the nuisance'?

Answer: Yes. A person can sue for private nuisance if dust from a factory unreasonably interferes with the use and enjoyment of their property, even if the plaintiff 'came to the nuisance' by moving onto land next to an already operating source of interference.


Question: A person brings a private nuisance claim for obnoxious odors. Is this a valid claim?

Answer: Yes. A private nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of one's land, and a private nuisance claim may be brought by an individual for obnoxious odors.


Question: What constitutes a private nuisance?

Answer: A private nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of one's land, and a private nuisance claim may be brought by an individual for obnoxious odors.


Question: A private party suffers 'special damage' from a public nuisance. Can the private party institute an action for public nuisance?

Answer: Yes. A private party may only institute an action for public nuisance if the private party suffers 'special damage' from the nuisance. The special damage must be of a different kind from that suffered by the public at large.


Question: When may a private party institute an action for public nuisance?

Answer: A private party may only institute an action for public nuisance if the private party suffers 'special damage' from the nuisance. The special damage must be of a different kind from that suffered by the public at large.


Question: A defendant makes repeated harassing phone calls to the plaintiff. Is this an actionable private nuisance?

Answer: Yes. If a defendant makes repeated harassing phone calls to the plaintiff, it is an actionable private nuisance because it is an interference with the plaintiff's comfort.


Question: Are repeated harassing phone calls to the plaintiff an actionable private nuisance?

Answer: Yes. If a defendant makes repeated harassing phone calls to the plaintiff, it is an actionable private nuisance because it is an interference with the plaintiff's comfort.


Question: A private party suffers unique damage not suffered by the public at large. Is recovery available for public nuisance?

Answer: Yes. Recovery is available for public nuisance only if a private party has suffered some unique damage not suffered by the public at large. There needs to be a claim for special damages.


Question: When is recovery available for public nuisance?

Answer: Recovery is available for public nuisance only if a private party has suffered some unique damage not suffered by the public at large. There needs to be a claim for special damages.


Question: A plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for a nuisance. Can the plaintiff obtain this relief?

Answer: Yes. A plaintiff can obtain injunctive relief and damages for a nuisance.


Question: What relief can a plaintiff obtain for a nuisance?

Answer: A plaintiff can obtain injunctive relief and damages for a nuisance.


Question: A public nuisance unreasonably interferes with the health, safety, or property rights of the community. Is this a valid claim?

Answer: Yes. A public nuisance unreasonably interferes with the health, safety, or property rights of the community.


Question: What does a public nuisance unreasonably interfere with?

Answer: A public nuisance unreasonably interferes with the health, safety, or property rights of the community.


Question: The gravity of the harm caused by a nuisance outweighs the utility of the conduct. Is the nuisance considered unreasonable?

Answer: Yes. A nuisance is unreasonable if the gravity of the harm caused outweighs the utility of the conduct.


Question: When is a nuisance considered unreasonable?

Answer: A nuisance is unreasonable if the gravity of the harm caused outweighs the utility of the conduct.


Question: A private nuisance is offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to the average person in the community. Will the claim succeed?

Answer: Yes. A private nuisance must be offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to the average person in the community. A private nuisance claim will not succeed if the plaintiff is especially sensitive.


Question: What must a private nuisance be offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to?

Answer: A private nuisance must be offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to the average person in the community. A private nuisance claim will not succeed if the plaintiff is especially sensitive.


Question: Loud noise or putrid odors unreasonably and substantially interfere with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of his land. Is this a private nuisance?

Answer: Yes. A private nuisance occurs if there is loud noise or putrid odors that unreasonably and substantially interfere with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of his land.


Question: When does a private nuisance occur?

Answer: A private nuisance occurs if there is loud noise or putrid odors that unreasonably and substantially interfere with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of his land.


Question: An adverse effect to the plaintiff's property value is not present. Is this a requisite element of a nuisance action?

Answer: No. An adverse effect to the plaintiff's property value is not a requisite element of a nuisance action.


Question: Is an adverse effect to the plaintiff's property value a requisite element of a nuisance action?

Answer: No. An adverse effect to the plaintiff's property value is not a requisite element of a nuisance action.


Question: A private investigator hired by the defendant pretends to be the plaintiff to gain access to the plaintiff's phone records. Is the defendant liable for intrusion upon seclusion?

Answer: Yes. The tort of intrusion upon seclusion gives liability for intrusions upon one's private affairs, which would be offensive to a reasonable person. The tort may be committed in many ways, including tapping the plaintiff's phone, eavesdropping on the plaintiff, peeping through the plaintiff's window, searching the plaintiff's computer files, entering the plaintiff's hospital room after permission to enter has been denied, inspecting the plaintiff's shopping bag or purse, or forcing the plaintiff to submit to a drug test.


Question: What does the tort of intrusion upon seclusion give liability for?

Answer: The tort of intrusion upon seclusion gives liability for intrusions upon one's private affairs, which would be offensive to a reasonable person. The tort may be committed in many ways, including tapping the plaintiff's phone, eavesdropping on the plaintiff, peeping through the plaintiff's window, searching the plaintiff's computer files, entering the plaintiff's hospital room after permission to enter has been denied, inspecting the plaintiff's shopping bag or purse, or forcing the plaintiff to submit to a drug test.


Question: A newspaper publishes an accurate representation of a newsworthy event, even if it is gruesome. Is this actionable?

Answer: No. The media/press has a First Amendment right to publish an accurate representation of a newsworthy event, and even gruesome depictions of newsworthy events are not actionable if they are accurate.


Question: Does the media/press have a First Amendment right to publish an accurate representation of a newsworthy event?

Answer: Yes. The media/press has a First Amendment right to publish an accurate representation of a newsworthy event, and even gruesome depictions of newsworthy events are not actionable if they are accurate.


Question: A defendant disseminates confidential or private information about a plaintiff that is likely to cause embarrassment. Is the defendant liable for the tort of disclosure?

Answer: Yes. A defendant can be found liable for the tort of disclosure based on the widespread dissemination of confidential or private information about a plaintiff that is likely to cause embarrassment or hold the plaintiff up to ridicule or contempt. However, an exception to this general rule is that the First Amendment allows for disclosure of information that is newsworthy and there is a legitimate public interest or justification for disclosing the information.


Question: When can a defendant be found liable for the tort of disclosure?

Answer: A defendant can be found liable for the tort of disclosure based on the widespread dissemination of confidential or private information about a plaintiff that is likely to cause embarrassment or hold the plaintiff up to ridicule or contempt. However, an exception to this general rule is that the First Amendment allows for disclosure of information that is newsworthy and there is a legitimate public interest or justification for disclosing the information.


Question: What must be pleaded and proven in a cause of action for slander?

Answer: In a cause of action for slander (spoken defamation), special damages must be pleaded and proven. The plaintiff must show actual out-of-pocket pecuniary loss suffered because of the defamation in terms of loss of business or some advantage the plaintiff would have gotten otherwise, unless the spoken defamation is slander per se involving: (1) imputation of a crime of a serious nature; (2) loathsome disease (AIDS); (3) business or trade; or (4) serious sexual misconduct or unchastity.


Question: A defendant sells to a tabloid some information gained by opening the plaintiff's email after secretly observing the plaintiff type his email password. Can the plaintiff recover damages for intrusion upon seclusion?

Answer: Yes. An action for intrusion upon seclusion can be brought if the defendant commits: (1) an intentional intrusion (physical or otherwise); (2) upon solitude, seclusion, or private affairs that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.


Question: When can an action for intrusion upon seclusion be brought?

Answer: An action for intrusion upon seclusion can be brought if the defendant commits: (1) an intentional intrusion (physical or otherwise); (2) upon solitude, seclusion, or private affairs that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.


Question: A public official or public figure seeks to recover damages for libel or defamation. What must they show?

Answer: In order to recover damages for libel or defamation, a public official or public figure must be able to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with actual malice.


Question: What must a public official or public figure show to recover damages for libel or defamation?

Answer: In order to recover damages for libel or defamation, a public official or public figure must be able to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with actual malice.


Question: An advertisement depicts a specific celebrity without their consent. Is this a violation of the common law right of publicity?

Answer: Yes. The common law right of publicity is violated if an advertisement, when viewed as a whole, leaves little doubt that the ad is intended to depict a specific celebrity who has not consented to the use of his identity.


Question: When is the common law right of publicity violated?

Answer: The common law right of publicity is violated if an advertisement, when viewed as a whole, leaves little doubt that the ad is intended to depict a specific celebrity who has not consented to the use of his identity.


Question: A publication is consented to, authorized, invited, or procured by the plaintiff. Is this defamation actionable?

Answer: No. Defamation is not actionable where the publication is consented to, authorized, invited, or procured by the plaintiff, regardless of the plaintiff's injuries or the speaker's intent.


Question: Is defamation actionable if the publication is consented to, authorized, invited, or procured by the plaintiff?

Answer: No. Defamation is not actionable where the publication is consented to, authorized, invited, or procured by the plaintiff, regardless of the plaintiff's injuries or the speaker's intent.


Question: A photograph of a well-known actor is used for commercial purposes without their permission. Is this an invasion of privacy?

Answer: Yes. Making commercial use of a photograph of a well-known actor for your own use and benefit is an invasion of the actor's privacy by appropriation of his likeness.


Question: Is making commercial use of a photograph of a well-known actor for your own use and benefit an invasion of privacy?

Answer: Yes. Making commercial use of a photograph of a well-known actor for your own use and benefit is an invasion of the actor's privacy by appropriation of his likeness.


Question: A newspaper publishes a fair and accurate report of a newsworthy event. Is the newspaper liable for invasion of privacy?

Answer: No. A newspaper will not be liable for invasion of privacy if the story was a fair and accurate report of a newsworthy event or based on a matter of public record.


Question: A photograph of a person is used without their permission for profit. Is this an invasion of privacy?

Answer: Yes. This is an invasion of privacy because it violates the individual's right to control the use of their likeness. This form of appropriation for commercial gain is one of the recognized categories of invasion of privacy.


Question: A plaintiff is called a deadbeat. Can the plaintiff prevail in a defamation suit without proving special damages?

Answer: No. Since being called a deadbeat is not slander per se, a plaintiff will not prevail in a defamation suit unless he can prove special damages.


Question: Can a plaintiff prevail in a defamation suit for being called a deadbeat without proving special damages?

Answer: No. Since being called a deadbeat is not slander per se, a plaintiff will not prevail in a defamation suit unless he can prove special damages.


Question: A photo of a public figure is recklessly shown endorsing a product, causing harm to the public figure. Is this defamatory per se?

Answer: Yes. It is defamatory per se if you recklessly show a photo of a public figure supposedly endorsing your product and it harms the public figure.


Question: Is it defamatory per se to recklessly show a photo of a public figure supposedly endorsing your product if it harms the public figure?

Answer: Yes. It is defamatory per se if you recklessly show a photo of a public figure supposedly endorsing your product and it harms the public figure.


Question: An employer had reasonable grounds for believing an employee was stealing, even if the employer was wrong. Is this defamation?

Answer: No. It is not defamation if the employer had reasonable grounds for his belief that the employee was stealing, even if the employer was wrong, so long as the employer was not acting maliciously.


Question: A defendant reasonably believed his defamatory statement to be true. Is this defamation?

Answer: No. It is not defamation if the defendant reasonably believed his defamatory statement to be true.


Question: Is it defamation if the defendant reasonably believed his defamatory statement to be true?

Answer: No. It is not defamation if the defendant reasonably believed his defamatory statement to be true.


Question: If a bill collector calls you a worthless bum in front of your neighbors, what must you prove to prevail in an action for slander?

Answer: You must prove special damages to prevail in an action for slander. Merely being called a worthless bum in front of your neighbors is insufficient without showing that you suffered some special damages.


Question: A defendant's statement was true. Is this a defense in a defamation cause of action?

Answer: Yes. In a defamation cause of action, proof that the defendant's statement was true is a defense by itself.


Question: An employer had reasonable grounds to believe an employee was not competent but was wrong. Is this defamation?

Answer: No. It is not defamation if the defendant employer had reasonable grounds for his belief that the employee was not competent, even if the employer was wrong, due to the defense of qualified privilege.


Question: What is the defense of qualified privilege?

Answer: The defense of qualified privilege allows false statements of fact made in good faith to be privileged. For example, it is not defamation if the defendant employer had reasonable grounds for his belief that the employee was not competent, even if the employer was wrong.


Question: Is truth a defense to defamation of a private person?

Answer: Yes. For the defamation of a private person, truth is a complete defense, even if you did not reasonably believe it to be true.


Question: What are the common defenses to intentional torts?

Answer: Common defenses to intentional torts include consent, self-defense, defense of others, and defense of property.


Question: What are the defenses to negligence?

Answer: Defenses to negligence include contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and assumption of risk.


Question: When can a plaintiff recover on a claim based on invasion of privacy?

Answer: A plaintiff may recover on a claim based on invasion of privacy if a defendant publicizes the details of the plaintiff's private life, unless the information is related to a legitimate public concern.


Question: Is a newspaper liable for defamation of a private person if it exercised ordinary care in determining the truth of the story?

Answer: No. A newspaper is not liable for defamation of a private person if it exercised ordinary care in determining whether the story was true or false.


Question: What doctrines allow a jury to find multiple defendants liable when the plaintiff cannot show which defendant's conduct caused the injury?

Answer: Three doctrines allow a jury to find multiple defendants liable even if the plaintiff cannot show which defendant’s conduct caused the injury: (1) Doctrine of Alternative Liability, (2) Doctrine of Joint Enterprise, and (3) Doctrine of Market Share Liability.


Question: When is a newspaper not liable for defamation of a private person?

Answer: A newspaper is not liable for defamation of a private person if it exercised ordinary care in determining whether the story was true or false.


Question: What are the elements of a defamation claim?

Answer: The elements of a defamation claim are: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third party; (3) fault amounting to at least negligence on the part of the publisher; and (4) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication.


Question: When does defamation of a private person occur?

Answer: Defamation of a private person occurs if the defendant has substantial doubts about the accuracy of the information he is conveying.


Question: What are the elements required to prove a prima facie case of defamation?

Answer: To prove a prima facie case of defamation, the plaintiff must show: (1) a false defamatory statement of and concerning the plaintiff made by the defendant; (2) publication by the defendant to a third party; and (3) damages. For slander, the plaintiff always needs to prove special damages unless the statement falls within one of the slander per se categories. For libel, the plaintiff does not need to prove special damages unless the statement does not fall within one of the slander per se categories and the defamatory nature of the statement is not clear on its face.


Question: What is required for a cause of action for defamation?

Answer: A cause of action for defamation requires that someone else hear it. If you defame someone in Russian, and no one knows Russian, there is no defamation.


Question: You defame someone in Russian, but no one understands Russian. Is there defamation?

Answer: No. There is no defamation if you defame someone in Russian and no one knows Russian because a cause of action for defamation requires that someone else hear it.


Question: What are the elements of a negligence claim based on a defective product?

Answer: A negligence claim based on a defective product requires: (1) a duty owed to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) causation (actual and proximate cause); and (4) damages.


Question: When is the publication requirement of slander satisfied?

Answer: The publication requirement of slander is satisfied if it was made under circumstances where it was overheard, and the defendant should have reasonably foreseen that it would be overheard.


Question: A plaintiff buys a car based on the defendant's false statement that it will pass inspection. Is this fraud?

Answer: Yes. This is fraud because the plaintiff relied on the intentional misrepresentation of a material fact by the defendant, who knew the statement was false.


Question: What are the scenarios in which a plaintiff may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress?

Answer: A plaintiff may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress in three scenarios: (1) a near miss case, (2) a bystander claim, and (3) in certain situations where a pre-existing relationship exists. For a near miss case, there must be negligence by the defendant creating a foreseeable risk of physical injury, the plaintiff must be in the zone of danger, and the plaintiff must manifest physical symptoms. For a bystander claim, there must be negligence by the defendant, the plaintiff must be a contemporaneous witness to a negligent bodily injury inflicted on a close family member, and the plaintiff must manifest physical symptoms. Some jurisdictions do not require physical symptoms, and a few require that the plaintiff be in the zone of danger to recover.


Question: What constitutes fraud?

Answer: Fraud is intentional misrepresentation of a material fact, made knowingly, with intent to defraud, that is justifiably relied upon by the other party and causes injury to that party. A defrauded party may rescind the contract and get back any consideration paid, or retain the goods or value obtained and sue in tort for damages which is the lessened value because of the fraud.


Question: Can a tort fraud action be maintained if a party to a contract makes a promise with no intention to perform?

Answer: Yes. A tort fraud action can be maintained if a party to a contract makes a promise with no intention to perform. The elements of the tort of fraud are satisfied if a party fraudulently makes a material misrepresentation of fact on which the plaintiff had the right to rely, and actually did rely, which caused an injury.


Question: When may a plaintiff recover in tort where a legal duty exists independent of a contractual obligation?

Answer: A plaintiff may recover in tort where a legal duty exists independent of a contractual obligation. A tort fraud action can be maintained if a party to a contract makes a promise with no intention to perform. The elements of the tort of fraud are satisfied if a party fraudulently makes a material misrepresentation of fact on which the plaintiff had the right to rely, and actually did rely, which caused an injury. Since fraud is a contract tort, contract rules for damages apply.


Question: A vaporizer is marketed as spill-proof, but a child is burned by spilled hot water. Is there a claim for misrepresentation?

Answer: Yes. There is a claim for misrepresentation because a jury can find that the manufacturer intentionally and fraudulently represented that the vaporizer is spill-proof, and the plaintiff relied on that misrepresentation, resulting in damages.


Question: When can a plaintiff assert a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation against a manufacturer?

Answer: A plaintiff can assert a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation against a manufacturer if the manufacturer intentionally and fraudulently misrepresents a feature of a product, the plaintiff relies on that misrepresentation, and the misrepresentation results in damages (not just that the product didn't do what the manufacturer claimed).


Question: Are damages for emotional distress recoverable in negligent misrepresentation actions?

Answer: No. In negligent misrepresentation actions, pecuniary losses are recoverable, but damages for emotional distress are not, unless the misrepresentation involves a risk of physical harm.


Question: Are statements of opinion or puffery actionable in a claim based on deceit?

Answer: No. In a claim based on deceit, statements of the defendant that are mere opinion or puffery are not actionable.


Question: When is a person liable for intentional misrepresentation?

Answer: A person is liable for intentional misrepresentation if he makes a misrepresentation with the knowledge the statement is false and with the intent to induce the plaintiff's reliance on the misrepresentation.


Question: Does failure to disclose a material fact give rise to deceit?

Answer: No. Failure to disclose a material fact does not give rise to deceit, except for parties in a confidential or fiduciary relationship who have a duty to disclose all material facts to avoid deceit.


Question: When is an action for negligent misrepresentation confined?

Answer: An action for negligent misrepresentation is confined to misrepresentations made in a commercial setting, and liability will attach only if reliance by the particular plaintiff could be contemplated.


Question: What is intentional misrepresentation?

Answer: Intentional misrepresentation (i.e., fraud or deceit) is a misrepresentation of a knowingly false material fact with the intent to induce reliance by the plaintiff.


Question: A former employee convinces customers to cancel their contracts with his prior employer based on a misrepresentation. Is this tortious interference?

Answer: Yes. The ex-employee will be found liable for tortious interference with contract because he intentionally and improperly interfered with his prior employer's contracts by convincing customers to cancel their existing contracts based on a misrepresentation.


Question: What must a plaintiff establish to succeed on a claim of tortious interference with contractual relations?

Answer: To succeed on a claim of tortious interference with contractual relations, a plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) there was a contract between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) the defendant knew of the contract; (3) the defendant improperly induced the third party to breach the contract or made performance of the contract impossible; and (4) there was injury to the plaintiff.


Question: Can a tort cause of action for interference with a contract be between the parties to the contract?

Answer: No. A tort cause of action based on interference with a contract cannot be between the parties to the contract. It must be between a party to the contract and a third person because claims of breach between parties to a contract are governed by contract law, not tort law.