When does Strict Liability apply to Abnormally Dangerous Activities?

Strict liability applies if the activity: (1) creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when all reasonable care is exercised; and (2) is not a matter of common usage in the community (Restatement Second §§ 519-520; Rylands v. Fletcher). Examples: blasting/explosives, fumigation with toxic gas, crop dusting. Plaintiff must be harmed by the specific hazard that made the activity abnormally dangerous.

What is the general Standard of Care in negligence, and how does it apply to mental vs. physical disabilities?

The standard of care is that of a reasonably prudent person (RPP) acting under similar circumstances. It is an objective standard. Physical disabilities ARE incorporated (the standard is a reasonably prudent person with that specific physical disability). Mental disabilities, low intelligence, or emotional instability are NOT considered (the objective RPP standard still applies).

What is the standard of care for Professionals (e.g., physicians, attorneys, accountants)?

A professional owes the standard of care of an average, qualified member of that profession in good standing in similar communities (or a national standard for certified medical specialists). Custom of the profession establishes the legal standard; expert testimony is generally required to prove breach unless the negligence is within lay knowledge (e.g., amputating the wrong limb).

What are the elements of Trespass to Land, and what intent is required?

1. Physical invasion of plaintiff's real property; 2. Intent to enter or cause a physical thing or third person to enter the land (intent to trespass is NOT required—only intent to perform the physical act that constitutes the entry; good-faith mistake of property boundaries is no defense); 3. Causation. Actual damages are not required; nominal damages are available.

Under what circumstances is Consent invalid as a defense to an intentional tort?

Consent is invalid if: (1) Induced by fraud going to the essential nature of the conduct (fraud in the inducement vs. fraud in the factum); (2) Obtained under duress (physical force or immediate threat of force); (3) Given by a person lacking legal capacity (minors, intoxicated individuals, mentally incompetent persons); or (4) Exceeded in scope by defendant's conduct.

What are the requirements to establish Negligence Per Se, and what is its procedural effect?

Plaintiff must prove: (1) Defendant violated a safety statute/regulation; (2) Plaintiff is within the class of persons the statute was designed to protect; and (3) The injury suffered was the type of harm the statute was designed to prevent. Procedural effect in most jurisdictions: Conclusive presumption of duty and breach (plaintiff still must prove causation and damages). Excused if compliance was impossible or more dangerous than violation.

How do Cardozo and Andrews disagree on the scope of Duty in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.?

• Cardozo (Majority / Foreseeable Plaintiff): Duty is owed ONLY to foreseeable plaintiffs within the 'zone of foreseeable danger.' If harm to plaintiff was not reasonably foreseeable from defendant's conduct, defendant owes no duty. • Andrews (Dissent / Duty to World): Everyone owes a general duty to the world at large to refrain from acts unreasonably threatening others' safety; foreseeability is an issue of proximate causation, not duty.

What are the three recognized types of product defects in products liability?

1. Manufacturing Defect: The product departs from its intended design specifications and differs from identical units from the same production line. 2. Design Defect: All products in the line are identical but dangerous. Tested by either: (a) Consumer Expectations Test (fails to perform as safely as ordinary consumer expects), or (b) Risk-Utility Test (risks outweigh utility AND a reasonable alternative design [RAD] was feasible, economical, and would have prevented harm). 3. Inadequate Warning / Failure to Warn: Product lacks clear warnings or instructions regarding foreseeable non-obvious risks.

What are the prima facie elements required to establish the intentional tort of Battery?

1. Volitional act by defendant; 2. Intent to cause harmful or offensive contact with plaintiff's person (or apprehension thereof); 3. Harmful or offensive contact actually results (directly or indirectly); 4. Contact is with plaintiff's person or an object intimately connected to it (e.g., cane, hat, plate); 5. Lack of consent. Contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity.

Compare Contributory Negligence, Pure Comparative Fault, and Modified Comparative Fault.

• Contributory Negligence (traditional minority): Any negligence by plaintiff completely bars recovery, subject to Last Clear Chance doctrine. • Pure Comparative Fault (MBE default unless stated): Plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their exact percentage of fault (e.g., 90% at fault plaintiff still recovers 10%). • Modified Comparative Fault (majority): Plaintiff's recovery is barred if plaintiff's fault exceeds 50% (51% bar rule) or reaches 50% (50% equal-fault bar rule).

What are the prima facie elements of Strict Products Liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A?

1. Defendant is a commercial seller or distributor engaged in the business of selling the product; 2. The product was defective when it left defendant's hands; 3. The product reached the consumer without substantial change in its condition; 4. The defect caused physical harm or property damage to plaintiff (pure economic loss is not recoverable in tort under economic loss doctrine); and 5. Plaintiff used the product in a foreseeable manner (including foreseeable misuses).

What are the three elements of Res Ipsa Loquitur, and what is its procedural effect?

1. The accident causing injury is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence; 2. The instrumentality causing the injury was under defendant's exclusive control (or right of control); 3. The accident was not due to any voluntary action or contribution by the plaintiff. Procedural effect: Allows an inference of negligence, defeating defendant's motion for directed verdict / JMOL and sending the case to the jury.

What are the legal boundaries of Self-Defense and Defense of Others in tort law?

A person may use reasonable force to protect against an imminent unlawful battery, assault, or imprisonment. Proportionality: Force must be reasonably necessary to prevent the harm. Deadly force is permitted ONLY if the actor reasonably believes they are facing imminent death or serious bodily injury. Initial aggressors cannot claim self-defense unless they completely withdraw and communicate withdrawal.

What is the Learned Hand Formula for determining breach of duty in negligence?

B < P * L: • B = Burden of taking adequate precautions; • P = Probability that harm will occur; • L = Gravity or severity of the potential loss/injury. If the burden (cost/effort) of preventing the harm is less than the probability of harm multiplied by the severity of harm, the actor's failure to take precautions constitutes a breach of the standard of care.

How does the doctrine of Transferred Intent operate, and to which five intentional torts does it apply?

Transferred intent applies when a defendant acts intending to commit a tort against one person (or property) but: (1) commits a different tort against that person, (2) commits the intended tort against another person, or (3) commits a different tort against a different person. It applies exclusively to: Assault, Battery, False Imprisonment, Trespass to Land, and Trespass to Chattels.

What is the distinction between Public Necessity and Private Necessity in intentional torts?

• Public Necessity: Defendant acts to avert an imminent public disaster threatening the community. Complete defense; defendant is not liable for actual property damages caused. • Private Necessity: Defendant acts to protect own interest or small group. Qualified defense; defendant is privileged to enter/use property (landowner cannot expel defendant), but MUST pay for any actual damage caused.

What tests determine Actual Cause (Cause-in-Fact) in tort law?

1. 'But-For' Test: Default rule; plaintiff must prove that but for defendant's act, the injury would not have occurred (>50% probability). 2. Substantial Factor Test: Used when multiple independent causes concur to bring about an indivisible harm, and any one alone would have caused it (e.g., two merging fires). 3. Alternative Liability (Summers v. Tice): Multiple defendants act tortiously, but only one caused harm and it cannot be determined which; burden shifts to each defendant to prove they did not cause it.

What are the prima facie elements of Assault, and how does it differ from Battery?

1. Volitional act by defendant; 2. Intent to cause harmful or offensive contact OR immediate apprehension of such contact; 3. Reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact in the plaintiff. Unlike battery, actual physical contact is not required; words alone generally do not suffice without an overt physical act, and plaintiff must be consciously aware of the threat at the time.

What duty does a landowner owe to an Undiscovered Trespasser vs. an Anticipated/Discovered Trespasser?

• Undiscovered Trespasser: No duty owed; no liability for injuries from natural or artificial conditions or activities. • Discovered / Anticipated Trespasser: Duty to warn of or make safe artificial conditions that are: (1) highly dangerous (risk of death or serious injury), (2) concealed / known to possessor, and (3) not obvious to the trespasser. No duty for natural conditions or ordinary dangers.

What is the standard of care applied to Children in negligence, and what is the adult activity exception?

Children are held to the standard of a reasonably prudent child of like age, intelligence, maturity, and experience (a subjective-objective hybrid standard). Exception: When a child engages in an adult activity (especially operating motorized vehicles like cars, boats, snowmobiles), the child is held to the adult objective reasonably prudent person standard.

Can deadly force ever be used solely to defend property? What is the rule from Katko v. Briney?

No. Deadly force (or mechanical devices like spring-guns or mantraps calculated to cause death or serious bodily harm) can NEVER be used solely to protect property. The value of human life and limb always outweighs property interests. Reasonable, non-deadly force may be used only after a request to desist is made (unless futile or dangerous).

What are the prima facie elements of False Imprisonment?

1. Defendant acts with intent to confine or restrain plaintiff within fixed boundaries; 2. Plaintiff is completely confined to a bounded area without reasonable means of escape; 3. Defendant's act causes the confinement (by physical barrier, physical force, threats of immediate force, or invalid assertion of legal authority); 4. Plaintiff is conscious of the confinement OR harmed by it.

What are the five requirements of the Attractive Nuisance doctrine regarding child trespassers?

A possessor of land is liable for physical harm to child trespassers caused by an artificial condition if: (1) possessor knows or has reason to know children are likely to trespass; (2) condition poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious injury; (3) children, because of youth, do not discover or realize the danger; (4) utility to possessor and burden of eliminating danger are slight compared to risk; and (5) possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate danger or protect children.

What are the four prima facie elements of Negligence?

1. Duty: A legally recognized obligation to conform to a particular standard of conduct to protect others against unreasonable risks; 2. Breach: Failure to conform to the required standard of care; 3. Causation: Defendant's breach was both the actual cause (cause-in-fact) and proximate cause (legal cause) of plaintiff's injury; and 4. Damages: Actual physical injury or property damage (nominal damages are not available in negligence).

What is the difference between an Intervening Cause and a Superseding Cause?

• Intervening Cause: An event or third-party act that occurs after defendant's tortious conduct and contributes to the harm. If foreseeable (e.g., subsequent medical malpractice, rescuer injury, normal disease transmission), defendant remains liable. • Superseding Cause: An unforeseeable, extraordinary intervening force (e.g., intentional/criminal acts of third parties, extraordinary acts of nature) that breaks the causal chain and cuts off defendant's liability.

What are the requirements for Express vs. Implied Assumption of the Risk?

• Express Assumption of Risk: Plaintiff expressly agrees by contract/exculpatory clause to relieve defendant of duty. Enforceable unless violates public policy (e.g., gross negligence, intentional torts, essential public services). • Implied Assumption of Risk: Plaintiff: (1) had actual knowledge and appreciation of the specific danger, and (2) voluntarily encountered the risk. In comparative fault jurisdictions, it is subsumed under comparative negligence.

What is Proximate Cause (Legal Cause), and how is it determined?

Proximate cause limits liability to harms that were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of defendant's conduct and within the 'scope of the risk' created by defendant's negligence. An actor is not liable for unforeseeable harms or harms occurring through bizarre, unforeseeable mechanisms (e.g., Palsgraf railway passenger carrying concealed fireworks).

What is the critical distinction between Trespass to Chattels and Conversion?

• Trespass to Chattels: Intentional interference with plaintiff's right of possession through dispossession or intermeddling (use/damage). Requires actual damages (loss of use or physical impairment). Remedy is actual damages or cost of repair. • Conversion: Intentional exercise of dominion or control over plaintiff's chattel that so seriously interferes with plaintiff's right to control that defendant must pay full value. Remedy is forced sale (fair market value at time of conversion).

What are the elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), and why is it unique among intentional torts?

1. Extreme and outrageous conduct exceeding all bounds of decency tolerated by a civilized society; 2. Intent to cause severe emotional distress OR recklessness as to the risk; 3. Causation; and 4. Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress (beyond mere insult/indignity). Unique because: (a) recklessness suffices (does not require specific or general intent); and (b) transferred intent generally does not apply.

What is the Eggshell Skull (Thin Skull) Rule in tort law?

Defendant takes the plaintiff as defendant finds them. Once plaintiff proves that defendant committed an actionable tort and caused personal injury, defendant is liable for the full extent of plaintiff's physical injuries, even if plaintiff had a pre-existing condition, genetic vulnerability, or frailty that made the consequences unforeseeably severe.

What duties does a landowner owe to a Licensee vs. an Invitee?

• Licensee (enters with permission for own purpose/social guest): Duty to warn of or make safe known dangerous conditions (natural or artificial) that are concealed from licensee. • Invitee (enters for commercial purpose or open to public): Highest duty; duty to inspect premises for non-obvious dangerous conditions and make them safe or warn, in addition to duties owed to licensees.

How does Respondeat Superior apply to Employee torts, and what is the Frolic vs. Detour distinction?

An employer is vicariously liable for torts committed by employees within the scope of employment. Employers are generally not liable for independent contractors unless non-delegable duty or inherently dangerous activity. • Detour: A minor deviation from the employer's business for personal reasons; still within the scope of employment (employer liable). • Frolic: A major departure or substantial abandonment of the employer's business; outside scope of employment (employer not vicariously liable).

Bar Exam MBE: Torts — Intentional Torts, Negligence (Duty, Breach, Causation, Damages) & Strict/Products Liability

Comprehensive MBE coverage of intentional torts, negligence standards and causation, premises liability, strict and products liability, and defenses.

Level: basic
Languages: en → en
Cards: 32
Markdown: Bar Exam MBE: Torts — Intentional Torts, Negligence (Duty, Breach, Causation, Damages) & Strict/Products Liability (.md)

Flashcards (32)

#	Front (Term / Question)	Back (Definition / Answer)
1	When does Strict Liability apply to Abnormally Dangerous Activities?	Strict liability applies if the activity: (1) creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when all reasonable care is exercised; and (2) is not a matter of common usage in the community (Restatement Second §§ 519-520; Rylands v. Fletcher). Examples: blasting/explosives, fumigation with toxic gas, crop dusting. Plaintiff must be harmed by the specific hazard that made the activity abnormally dangerous.
2	What is the general Standard of Care in negligence, and how does it apply to mental vs. physical disabilities?	The standard of care is that of a reasonably prudent person (RPP) acting under similar circumstances. It is an objective standard. Physical disabilities ARE incorporated (the standard is a reasonably prudent person with that specific physical disability). Mental disabilities, low intelligence, or emotional instability are NOT considered (the objective RPP standard still applies).
3	What is the standard of care for Professionals (e.g., physicians, attorneys, accountants)?	A professional owes the standard of care of an average, qualified member of that profession in good standing in similar communities (or a national standard for certified medical specialists). Custom of the profession establishes the legal standard; expert testimony is generally required to prove breach unless the negligence is within lay knowledge (e.g., amputating the wrong limb).
4	What are the elements of Trespass to Land, and what intent is required?	1. Physical invasion of plaintiff's real property; 2. Intent to enter or cause a physical thing or third person to enter the land (intent to trespass is NOT required—only intent to perform the physical act that constitutes the entry; good-faith mistake of property boundaries is no defense); 3. Causation. Actual damages are not required; nominal damages are available.
5	Under what circumstances is Consent invalid as a defense to an intentional tort?	Consent is invalid if: (1) Induced by fraud going to the essential nature of the conduct (fraud in the inducement vs. fraud in the factum); (2) Obtained under duress (physical force or immediate threat of force); (3) Given by a person lacking legal capacity (minors, intoxicated individuals, mentally incompetent persons); or (4) Exceeded in scope by defendant's conduct.
6	What are the requirements to establish Negligence Per Se, and what is its procedural effect?	Plaintiff must prove: (1) Defendant violated a safety statute/regulation; (2) Plaintiff is within the class of persons the statute was designed to protect; and (3) The injury suffered was the type of harm the statute was designed to prevent. Procedural effect in most jurisdictions: Conclusive presumption of duty and breach (plaintiff still must prove causation and damages). Excused if compliance was impossible or more dangerous than violation.
7	How do Cardozo and Andrews disagree on the scope of Duty in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.?	• Cardozo (Majority / Foreseeable Plaintiff): Duty is owed ONLY to foreseeable plaintiffs within the 'zone of foreseeable danger.' If harm to plaintiff was not reasonably foreseeable from defendant's conduct, defendant owes no duty. • Andrews (Dissent / Duty to World): Everyone owes a general duty to the world at large to refrain from acts unreasonably threatening others' safety; foreseeability is an issue of proximate causation, not duty.
8	What are the three recognized types of product defects in products liability?	1. Manufacturing Defect: The product departs from its intended design specifications and differs from identical units from the same production line. 2. Design Defect: All products in the line are identical but dangerous. Tested by either: (a) Consumer Expectations Test (fails to perform as safely as ordinary consumer expects), or (b) Risk-Utility Test (risks outweigh utility AND a reasonable alternative design [RAD] was feasible, economical, and would have prevented harm). 3. Inadequate Warning / Failure to Warn: Product lacks clear warnings or instructions regarding foreseeable non-obvious risks.
9	What are the prima facie elements required to establish the intentional tort of Battery?	1. Volitional act by defendant; 2. Intent to cause harmful or offensive contact with plaintiff's person (or apprehension thereof); 3. Harmful or offensive contact actually results (directly or indirectly); 4. Contact is with plaintiff's person or an object intimately connected to it (e.g., cane, hat, plate); 5. Lack of consent. Contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity.
10	Compare Contributory Negligence, Pure Comparative Fault, and Modified Comparative Fault.	• Contributory Negligence (traditional minority): Any negligence by plaintiff completely bars recovery, subject to Last Clear Chance doctrine. • Pure Comparative Fault (MBE default unless stated): Plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their exact percentage of fault (e.g., 90% at fault plaintiff still recovers 10%). • Modified Comparative Fault (majority): Plaintiff's recovery is barred if plaintiff's fault exceeds 50% (51% bar rule) or reaches 50% (50% equal-fault bar rule).
11	What are the prima facie elements of Strict Products Liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A?	1. Defendant is a commercial seller or distributor engaged in the business of selling the product; 2. The product was defective when it left defendant's hands; 3. The product reached the consumer without substantial change in its condition; 4. The defect caused physical harm or property damage to plaintiff (pure economic loss is not recoverable in tort under economic loss doctrine); and 5. Plaintiff used the product in a foreseeable manner (including foreseeable misuses).
12	What are the three elements of Res Ipsa Loquitur, and what is its procedural effect?	1. The accident causing injury is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence; 2. The instrumentality causing the injury was under defendant's exclusive control (or right of control); 3. The accident was not due to any voluntary action or contribution by the plaintiff. Procedural effect: Allows an inference of negligence, defeating defendant's motion for directed verdict / JMOL and sending the case to the jury.
13	What are the legal boundaries of Self-Defense and Defense of Others in tort law?	A person may use reasonable force to protect against an imminent unlawful battery, assault, or imprisonment. Proportionality: Force must be reasonably necessary to prevent the harm. Deadly force is permitted ONLY if the actor reasonably believes they are facing imminent death or serious bodily injury. Initial aggressors cannot claim self-defense unless they completely withdraw and communicate withdrawal.
14	What is the Learned Hand Formula for determining breach of duty in negligence?	B < P * L: • B = Burden of taking adequate precautions; • P = Probability that harm will occur; • L = Gravity or severity of the potential loss/injury. If the burden (cost/effort) of preventing the harm is less than the probability of harm multiplied by the severity of harm, the actor's failure to take precautions constitutes a breach of the standard of care.
15	How does the doctrine of Transferred Intent operate, and to which five intentional torts does it apply?	Transferred intent applies when a defendant acts intending to commit a tort against one person (or property) but: (1) commits a different tort against that person, (2) commits the intended tort against another person, or (3) commits a different tort against a different person. It applies exclusively to: Assault, Battery, False Imprisonment, Trespass to Land, and Trespass to Chattels.
16	What is the distinction between Public Necessity and Private Necessity in intentional torts?	• Public Necessity: Defendant acts to avert an imminent public disaster threatening the community. Complete defense; defendant is not liable for actual property damages caused. • Private Necessity: Defendant acts to protect own interest or small group. Qualified defense; defendant is privileged to enter/use property (landowner cannot expel defendant), but MUST pay for any actual damage caused.
17	What tests determine Actual Cause (Cause-in-Fact) in tort law?	1. 'But-For' Test: Default rule; plaintiff must prove that but for defendant's act, the injury would not have occurred (>50% probability). 2. Substantial Factor Test: Used when multiple independent causes concur to bring about an indivisible harm, and any one alone would have caused it (e.g., two merging fires). 3. Alternative Liability (Summers v. Tice): Multiple defendants act tortiously, but only one caused harm and it cannot be determined which; burden shifts to each defendant to prove they did not cause it.
18	What are the prima facie elements of Assault, and how does it differ from Battery?	1. Volitional act by defendant; 2. Intent to cause harmful or offensive contact OR immediate apprehension of such contact; 3. Reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact in the plaintiff. Unlike battery, actual physical contact is not required; words alone generally do not suffice without an overt physical act, and plaintiff must be consciously aware of the threat at the time.
19	What duty does a landowner owe to an Undiscovered Trespasser vs. an Anticipated/Discovered Trespasser?	• Undiscovered Trespasser: No duty owed; no liability for injuries from natural or artificial conditions or activities. • Discovered / Anticipated Trespasser: Duty to warn of or make safe artificial conditions that are: (1) highly dangerous (risk of death or serious injury), (2) concealed / known to possessor, and (3) not obvious to the trespasser. No duty for natural conditions or ordinary dangers.
20	What is the standard of care applied to Children in negligence, and what is the adult activity exception?	Children are held to the standard of a reasonably prudent child of like age, intelligence, maturity, and experience (a subjective-objective hybrid standard). Exception: When a child engages in an adult activity (especially operating motorized vehicles like cars, boats, snowmobiles), the child is held to the adult objective reasonably prudent person standard.
21	Can deadly force ever be used solely to defend property? What is the rule from Katko v. Briney?	No. Deadly force (or mechanical devices like spring-guns or mantraps calculated to cause death or serious bodily harm) can NEVER be used solely to protect property. The value of human life and limb always outweighs property interests. Reasonable, non-deadly force may be used only after a request to desist is made (unless futile or dangerous).
22	What are the prima facie elements of False Imprisonment?	1. Defendant acts with intent to confine or restrain plaintiff within fixed boundaries; 2. Plaintiff is completely confined to a bounded area without reasonable means of escape; 3. Defendant's act causes the confinement (by physical barrier, physical force, threats of immediate force, or invalid assertion of legal authority); 4. Plaintiff is conscious of the confinement OR harmed by it.
23	What are the five requirements of the Attractive Nuisance doctrine regarding child trespassers?	A possessor of land is liable for physical harm to child trespassers caused by an artificial condition if: (1) possessor knows or has reason to know children are likely to trespass; (2) condition poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious injury; (3) children, because of youth, do not discover or realize the danger; (4) utility to possessor and burden of eliminating danger are slight compared to risk; and (5) possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate danger or protect children.
24	What are the four prima facie elements of Negligence?	1. Duty: A legally recognized obligation to conform to a particular standard of conduct to protect others against unreasonable risks; 2. Breach: Failure to conform to the required standard of care; 3. Causation: Defendant's breach was both the actual cause (cause-in-fact) and proximate cause (legal cause) of plaintiff's injury; and 4. Damages: Actual physical injury or property damage (nominal damages are not available in negligence).
25	What is the difference between an Intervening Cause and a Superseding Cause?	• Intervening Cause: An event or third-party act that occurs after defendant's tortious conduct and contributes to the harm. If foreseeable (e.g., subsequent medical malpractice, rescuer injury, normal disease transmission), defendant remains liable. • Superseding Cause: An unforeseeable, extraordinary intervening force (e.g., intentional/criminal acts of third parties, extraordinary acts of nature) that breaks the causal chain and cuts off defendant's liability.
26	What are the requirements for Express vs. Implied Assumption of the Risk?	• Express Assumption of Risk: Plaintiff expressly agrees by contract/exculpatory clause to relieve defendant of duty. Enforceable unless violates public policy (e.g., gross negligence, intentional torts, essential public services). • Implied Assumption of Risk: Plaintiff: (1) had actual knowledge and appreciation of the specific danger, and (2) voluntarily encountered the risk. In comparative fault jurisdictions, it is subsumed under comparative negligence.
27	What is Proximate Cause (Legal Cause), and how is it determined?	Proximate cause limits liability to harms that were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of defendant's conduct and within the 'scope of the risk' created by defendant's negligence. An actor is not liable for unforeseeable harms or harms occurring through bizarre, unforeseeable mechanisms (e.g., Palsgraf railway passenger carrying concealed fireworks).
28	What is the critical distinction between Trespass to Chattels and Conversion?	• Trespass to Chattels: Intentional interference with plaintiff's right of possession through dispossession or intermeddling (use/damage). Requires actual damages (loss of use or physical impairment). Remedy is actual damages or cost of repair. • Conversion: Intentional exercise of dominion or control over plaintiff's chattel that so seriously interferes with plaintiff's right to control that defendant must pay full value. Remedy is forced sale (fair market value at time of conversion).
29	What are the elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), and why is it unique among intentional torts?	1. Extreme and outrageous conduct exceeding all bounds of decency tolerated by a civilized society; 2. Intent to cause severe emotional distress OR recklessness as to the risk; 3. Causation; and 4. Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress (beyond mere insult/indignity). Unique because: (a) recklessness suffices (does not require specific or general intent); and (b) transferred intent generally does not apply.
30	What is the Eggshell Skull (Thin Skull) Rule in tort law?	Defendant takes the plaintiff as defendant finds them. Once plaintiff proves that defendant committed an actionable tort and caused personal injury, defendant is liable for the full extent of plaintiff's physical injuries, even if plaintiff had a pre-existing condition, genetic vulnerability, or frailty that made the consequences unforeseeably severe.
31	What duties does a landowner owe to a Licensee vs. an Invitee?	• Licensee (enters with permission for own purpose/social guest): Duty to warn of or make safe known dangerous conditions (natural or artificial) that are concealed from licensee. • Invitee (enters for commercial purpose or open to public): Highest duty; duty to inspect premises for non-obvious dangerous conditions and make them safe or warn, in addition to duties owed to licensees.
32	How does Respondeat Superior apply to Employee torts, and what is the Frolic vs. Detour distinction?	An employer is vicariously liable for torts committed by employees within the scope of employment. Employers are generally not liable for independent contractors unless non-delegable duty or inherently dangerous activity. • Detour: A minor deviation from the employer's business for personal reasons; still within the scope of employment (employer liable). • Frolic: A major departure or substantial abandonment of the employer's business; outside scope of employment (employer not vicariously liable).