Tort Theory Forum

[lorrum88]

Usually a decently structured outline will take into account the syllabus from the class. I wanted to list some of the subject matter I have to work with here.

Responsibility for what?

Responsibilities due to Relationships to people
1. Privity of Contract
2. Failure to Act
3. Various Liability

Responsibilities due to Relationships to things
1. Strict L. Part 1 and 2
2. Product L Part 1, 2, and 3

Responsibilities due to Relationships to Places and People
1. Premise Liabilities
2. Nuisance

Responsibilities due to relationships: Interference with Business Relationships

Shared Responsibilities

[Un]wrongs, distributed Wrongs, and Excused Wrongs I, II, and III

Repair 1,2, and 3

Norms or Allocation? Doing Away with Tort Law


So these are just really brief subject headings the professor has identified in his syllabus. Additionally, the professor talks in depth about Tort theory and the meaning behind it all (and on some days I am just completely listening to someone speak a foreign language because the theory is so thick and confusing). He loves spectrums. To be fair in all honesty I like the class. I went to him for advice. He told me that I was to learn the law by reading and studying the material (clearly my job). He told me that he was to teach all the things I should think about before becoming an attorney because once I finally became an attorney I would not have time to think about it. Then he said, I expect to see the law on your exams but I expect to read how you feel about the theories I have presented this semester.

Okay, I wanted to say something like thank you Yoda in my most sarcastic voice but I refrained and walked away marginally enlightened...I do mean marginally.

I gathered I obviously will need to pull the law from the casebooks and supplements and that it is up to me on that end and I attend class everyday only missing one thus far but I am not sure what to do about the theory.

Can anyone recommend a rather short book that breaks Tort theories down a bit. I have my Tort Outline looking fairly well with the case law and basic concepts but I am not even sure where to begin when I look in my notes and see one of those questions he fired off at the last minute as class was ending:

Q?: When you look at the Comp. Fault and Contrib. Fault approaches (as slim as it may be) what responses do you have to: (1) Do clean hands matter more to one than to another and (2) Can there be a justification for saying a person has zero % fault under one or the other or both? Also think about how you might reconcile these Fault rationales with the theory that there is a segregation of the consequences of the wrong with the wrong itself.

Thankfully the first year is almost done. I would appreciate your advice in this matter.

[jump_man]

Just focus on learning the elements of the torts. For example . . .

Battery:
1. Did D act?
2. Did D intend to cause contact (of a harmful/offensive nature)?
3. Did D actually cause contact of a harmful/offensive nature?

Negligence:
1. Did D act?
2. Did D have a duty to P?
3. Did D breach their duty?
4. Was D the actual cause of P's injury?
5. Was D the proximate cause of P's injury?

Etc.

. . . go through each of the elements when analyzing your fact patterns to see if they have been met. Next step is defenses, and then remedies.