Go on. Explore!

lvl 0 • 0 xp

lvl 1

Home Market Decks Interests

Business Law Exam 2 Haskell Murray

memorize.ai (lvl 286)

(0)

42 cards

()

Section 1

Preview this deck

ultrahazardous activity

Front

1 / 42

Haskell

0.0

0 reviews

5			0
4			0
3			0
2			0
1			0

Active users

All-time users

Favorites

Last updated

6 years ago

Date created

Mar 1, 2020

Cards (42)

Section 1

(42 cards)

ultrahazardous activity

Front

When an activity involves a risk of serious harm, such as the use/transportation of explosives or toxic chemicals, strict liability will be imposed when any harm is caused to other persons or property - even if defendant took reasonable caution

Back

Punitive damages

Front

monetary award in addition to compensation and awarded to punish the defendant; cannot exceed compensatory damages

Back

Duty to Trespassers

Front

not to injure intentionally

Back

Negligent Manufacturing

Front

Design is good, but failure to inspect/careless conduct in assembling product leaving the plant

Back

Duty to Children

Front

if a man-made item on the land attracts children, landowner may be liable

Back

Assumption of Risk

Front

a person who voluntarily enters a situation that has an obvious danger cannot complain if she is injured - Liability waivers protect company a bit, but not by an absurd amount

Back

Tortious interference with a contract

Front

an intentional tort in which the defendant improperly convinced a third party to breach a contract with the plaintiff; resulting in injury to plaintiff

Back

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Front

The event does not normally occur in the absence of negligence; "the thing speaks for itself."

Back

Assault vs. Battery

Front

Assault = placing a person in fear or immediate bodily harm Battery = unlawfully touching a person Assault leads to Battery

Back

Negligence Case

Front

Plaintiff must prove 5 elements: 1. Duty of Care - defendant had a duty of due care to the plaintiff. 2. Breach - defendant breached this duty. 3. Causation - defendant actually caused the damages; factual and proximate 4. Damages - single recovery for past, present, and future; genuine injury

Back

Christian was careless, but not intentional in injuring Sarah when he rode into her on his skateboard. Which type of tort claim is most likely?

Front

Negligence

Back

Contract Law

Front

body of laws that define contractual agreements between persons

Back

Personal Property

Front

possessions such as jewelry, furniture, keys, phone...

Back

Comparative Negligence

Front

reduces plaintiff recovery by percent negligent (Tennessee practices) - some states, plaintiff cannot recover at all after 50% negligent

Back

Compensatory damages

Front

A money award equivalent to the actual value of injuries or damages sustained by the plaintiff.

Back

Tort liability to physically unharmed bystanders

Front

emotional distress applies if: near the scene of injury, seeing injury caused immediate shock, and is a close relative of the physically harmed victim.

Back

Superseding Cause

Front

something that breaks the chain of causation for injury/accident

Back

Consumer Expectation

Front

less safe than the reasonable customer would expect

Back

Duty to Licensees

Front

to warn of known dangerous conditions licensees are unlikely to discover for themselves - social event

Back

Real Property

Front

physical/permanent part of property such as land, buildings, plants

Back

False Imprisonment

Front

the intentional confinement or restraint of another person's activities without justification

Back

risk-utility test

Front

test to see if product is defective/dangerous - value of product, gravity of danger, likelihood of danger, feasibility of a safer design, adverse consequences of alternative design

Back

Defamation

Front

Act of harming or ruining another's reputation; slander or libel; intentional tort

Back

Equal Dignities Rule

Front

if the underlying contract had to be in writing, then the waiver and modification must be in writing

Back

TN Tort Reform

Front

$750,000 for non-economic damages and $1M for catastrophic

Back

Strict Liability Tort

Front

a civil wrong that involves taking action that is so inherently dangerous under the circumstances of its performance that no amount of due care can make it safe

Back

Negligent Torts

Front

Occur when defendant fails to act in a responsible way, subjecting others to an unreasonable risk of harm; careless but guilty

Back

Tort Law

Front

Law that deals with harm to a person or a person's property.

Back

Agent-principal relationship

Front

Requires consent, control, and trusting relationship

Back

Negligent Design

Front

The buyer claims that the product injured her because the manufacturer designed it poorly.

Back

Contributory Negligence

Front

Even if 1% negligent, can't recover damages

Back

Defenses to Negligence

Front

Superseding Cause Contributory/Comparative Negligence Assumption of the Risk

Back

Intellectual Property

Front

copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets

Back

Agent

Front

a person who acts or does business for another

Back

Lanham Act

Front

broad protection against false statements intended to hurt another business

Back

Defective Products

Front

Sells product in defective condition that's unreasonably dangerous, seller expects defective product to reach customer w/o changes, and customer is injured

Back

negligence per se

Front

a doctrine whereby an act is considered negligent because it violates a statute (or regulation)

Back

intentional tort

Front

tort in which the defendant intends to commit the injurious act

Back

Slander vs. Libel

Front

Slander is spoken and libel is written

Back

Tort Reform

Front

efforts to limit liability in civil cases and reduce damages plaintiff can receive. Ex. some cap at $250,000 or 3x economic damages

Back

Duty to Invitees

Front

to exercise reasonable care to protect public against dangerous conditions possessor should know of but invitees are unlikely to discover - beware of dog sign

Back

Proximate Cause

Front

Legal cause; exists when defendant should have reasonably foreseen that his/her conduct would result in plaintiff's injuries

Back