Exam (elaborations)
blaw 3310 Miller test 2 6-10 questions and answers verified answers||Latest 2024/2025
- Course
- Institution
blaw 3310 Miller test 2 6-10 questions and answers verified answers||Latest 2024/2025
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
blaw 3310 Miller test 2 6-10torts - ANScivil wrong negligence
Reasonable person standard of care - ANSminimum standard requiring individuals to act as a
reasonably prudent person
Professional Standards - ANSguidelines of acceptable behavior and performance established
by professional associations
Malpractice - ANSNegligence by a professional person
causation - ANSthe belief that events occur in predictable ways and that one event leads to
another
causation in fact - ANSAn act or omission without which an event would not have occurred.
proximate cause - ANSLegal cause; exists when the connection between an act and an injury is
strong enough to justify imposing liability.
Premise Liability - ANSthe legal responsibility a facility or event manager owes to the individuals
utilizing the venue
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad - ANSTort: Negligence
Element: Duty of Care
There must be a direct foreseeable link between the negligent act and the damage. Injury
caused to a party of sufficient distance in an unforeseeable manner does not attract a duty of
care.
exculpatory clause - ANSA clause that releases a contractual party from liability in the event of
monetary or physical injury, no matter who is at fault.
Comparative Negligence - ANSA theory in tort law under which the liability for injuries resulting
from negligent acts is shared by all parties who were negligent (including the injured party), on
the basis of each person's proportionate negligence.
51% rule - ANSPlaintiff recovers nothing if liability is greater than 50%.
intentional torts - ANSHarm caused by a deliberate action
Fuerschbach v. Southwest Airlines - ANS-Fuerschbach is a new employee with Southwest
Airlines and every new employee must go through kind of a celebratory-rookie-prank.
, Fuerschbach knew that a prank just may be pulled on her, like a mock arrest which had
happened to employees in the past. Fuerschbach's supervisors got two Albuquerque police to
come and pretend to arrest Fuerschbach. They read her rights and told her of her 'alleged
crimes' and put the cuffs on her and took her to the back where the other employees yelled in
cheerful laughter. Her cuffs were removed so the party could begin, but Fuerschbach could not
stop crying and eventually sent home. She had to see a psychologist who said she suffered
from post-traumatic stress disorder.
-She sued everyone affiliated with the prank for assault and battery and other offenses.
-The district court granted summary judgement for defendants. Fuershbach appealed.
Fuersbach v.
Southwest Airlines, what did she sue for? - ANSalse
imprisonment, infliction of emotional distress, "floodgate
argument", invasion of privacy, misappropriation of identity,
floodgate argument - ANSa legal principle which is sometimes applied by judges to restrict or
limit the right to make claims for damages because of a concern that permitting a claimant to
recover in such situations might open the metaphorical "floodgates" to large numbers of claims
and lawsuits.
misappropriation identity - ANSunauthorized use of another's name, likeness, or identity without
that person's permission, resulting in harm to that person.
Erin Andrews Case - ANSwhen Erin Andrews sued a stalker and the hotel because the stalker
recorded a nude video of her and the hotel failed to honor her privacy by telling the stalker what
room she was in and letting the stalker get the room right next to hers
defamation - ANSAct of harming or ruining another's reputation
Slander - ANSspoken defamation
Libel - ANSwritten defamation
workplace defamation - ANSFormer employer communicates false information about former
employee that keeps them from getting a job
Truth as a defense - ANSyou can print it as long as it's true, Peter Zenger used in his trial
conditional privilege - ANSa party will not be held liable for defamation unless the false
statement was made with actual malice
actual malice - ANSEither knowledge of a defamatory statement's falsity or a reckless disregard
for the truth.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller QualityPDF. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $10.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
72841 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now