Torts+(Group+1)

Torts

Contributors: James Davis, Matthew Elwart, Jennifer Hill, Danelle Wattstoc

=Definition= Tort law involves compensation to anyone who has suffered a loss due to another person's wrongful act (Cross & Miller, 2012). See also [|Torts - West Encyclopedia of American Law].

=**1.0 Tort Reform **=

//by James Davis //
Detractors of the current law system argue that our system encourages insignificant and unsubstantiated lawsuits, which does nothing but bog down the courts, running up unnecessary expenses. Supporters of Tort reform believe that awards for damages are blown way out of proportion with no real connection to the harm that was actually suffered. As a result, they contest that more and more trivial lawsuits are filed. So too, does this spill over into the medical arena as Doctors and hospitals are concerned about malpractice lawsuits, they’ve adjusted their behavior accordingly. This is manifested by physicians giving more tests than more tests than are probably necessary so as to not incur malpractice suits. This, in turn, raises the costs of the nation’s health-care (Cross & Miller, p. 269).

__1.1 Defensive Medicine __
Defensive medicine is a medical practice intended to prevent the potential likelihood of a malpractice lawsuit. In defensive medicine, actions are taken largely in part, to evade liability instead of helping the patient. This entails doctors ordering additional examinations, procedures, or assessments in an attempt to decrease the chances of malpractice lawsuits. Defensive medicine raises the cost of health care while subjecting patients to needless procedures, and risks ("Definition of defensive medicine"). More specifically, the costs of added testing has to later be paid by either their insurance companies or by the patients themselves ("medicalmalpracticehelp").

With defensive medicine becoming more and more prevalent, malpractice reform has been called into question. Medical malpractice is an extension of tort law and is supposed to pay damages to patients for the suffering they incur due to carelessness, thereby deterring such negligence going forward. Tort scholars consider defensive medicine to be an “overdeterrence,” meaning that signals from tort law direct doctors to take more than necessary precautions that will reduce any future damage costs. Therefore, tort reforms should be looked at not just for their chance of keeping away from overdeterrence, but additionally for their likelihood of achieving appropriate and correct deterrence; thus, lessening the frequency of injury due to subpar care. Assessments should also take into consideration a reforms’ potential to guarantee that the liability structure dependably delivers compensation to patients who incur injuries due to negligence (Studdert).

__1.2 Tort Award Caps __
Tort reform involves balancing the incentives of patients who may have suffered harm from the negligence of doctors, against the motivations of doctors that carry the burden of succumbing to malpractice lawsuits. Damage payouts for malpractice have continually increased since 1986. In 1986, the typical amount awarded to patients who suffered damages was approximately $95,000. Conversely, by 2002, the typical disbursement amount had increased to upwards of $320,000—that’s an increase of 8% each year. As a result, states have implemented tighter limitations on liability, which has served to lessen medical malpractice premiums ("medicalmalpracticehelp").

Taking it a step further, in 2003 a bill presented to Congress by the House of Representatives and Senate was created to cap the sum that could be awarded in cases of medical negligence. The second reason for proposing the bill entailed reducing the premiums related to medical insurance. Even still, challengers of these cap proposals argue that the overall result of lowering premiums is not at all significant when taking into account that only approximately two percent of the all money spent on healthcare is a result of costs connected with medical negligence. Cap challengers furthermore state that such caps are merely in place to defend physicians who are careless while preventing patients harmed by the actions of negligence from getting the compensation they deserve ("medicalmalpracticehelp").


 * Tort Reform Example**
 * []**

=2.0 Intentional Torts Against Person=

//by Danelle Watts//
An intentional tort, as the term implies, requires intent. In tort law, intent means only that the actor intended the consequences of his or her act or knew with substantial certainty that specific consequences would result from the act. (Cross & Miller, 2012)

__2.1 Intentional Torts Against Person include__:
An assault is any intentionally causing apprehension of harmful or offensive contact. Tort law aims to protect individuals from having to expect harmful or offensive contact. (Cross & Miller, 2012) Two Types of Intent consist of, a) Intent to create apprehension of harmful and offensive contact, b) Intent to create contact.
 * //__Assault__//**

**Elements of Assault: (P= Plaintiff) (D=Defendant)**
 * Imminence**: It must appear to P that the harm being threatened is imminent and that D has the present ability to carry out the threat.
 * Awareness of Threat**: P must be aware of the threatened contact. There is no assault if the plaintiff does not realize that the act occurred.
 * No hostility is required:** It is not necessary that D bears malice toward P, or intends to harm him/her.
 * Words alone are not enough:** The word alone rule states that ordinarily, words alone are not sufficient by themselves to give rise to an assault. Usually there must be some overt action like a physical act or gesture.
 * Conditional threat:** Where D threatens to harm only if P does not obey D’s demands. The existence of an assault depends on whether D had the legal right to compel P to perform the act in question.


 * Example**: D, a bill collector, threatens to punch P in the face if P does not pay a bill immediately. Since D has intended to put P in imminent apprehension of a harmful bodily contact, this is assault whether D intends to, in fact, hit P or not.



**//__Battery__//**
Battery is an intentional, harmful, or offensive contact with the plaintiff. Battery protects our dignity in addition to protecting us from physical harm.


 * Elements of Battery:**
 * Offensive contact**: If the harmful contact causes pain or bodily damage.
 * Harmful contact:** Is objective based on the nature of contact. Battery also covers contacts, which are merely “offensive,” and or damaging to a “reasonable sense of dignity.
 * Not just person to person:** Battery may be committed not only by contact with the plaintiff’s body, but also contact with her clothing, or an object she is holding. This applies to indirect contact too, like ordering a dog to attack the plaintiff. (www.wcl.american.edu)


 * Example:** I intentionally punched my best friend in the nose, I have committed battery.

False Imprisonment is the intentional confinement or restraint of another person’s activities without justification. False imprisonment interferes with the freedom to move without restraint. (Cross & Miller, 2012)
 * //__False Imprisonment__//**
 * Elements of False Imprisonment: (P= Plaintiff) (D=Defendant) **
 * Intent to confine** Confinement can occur various ways through physical means, threats, or by assertion of legal authority.
 * Threat of Force:** If D threatens to use force if P tries to escape, confinement exists.
 * Assertion of legal authority:** A cop tells P to give him her license and she refuses.
 * Failure to Furnish:** Confinement may be caused by D’s assertion that he has the legal authority to confine P and refuses to provide an exit.
 * Awareness of confinement:** Plaintiff must be aware of confinement or suffer harm such as being drunk and not remembering being confined, or a child left in a car seat that suffers dehydration.
 * Mistake:** Mistake about circumstance does not excuse intent.


 * Example:** D wants to have sex with P, and locks her in his bedroom for two hours hoping that P will agree. She does not, and D lets her go. This is false imprisonment, because D has intentionally confined P.(www.wcl.american.edu)

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is an intentional act that amounts to extreme and outrageous conduct resulting in severe emotional distress to another. (Cross & Miller, 2012)In order for a lawsuit to be actionable, the act must be extreme and outrageous to the point that it exceeds the bounds of decency accepted by society. (Cross & Miller, 2012) Intent for this tort is a bit broader than for others. The 3 types consist of the desire to cause emotional distress, knowing with substantial certainty that P will suffer emotional distress and recklessly disregarding the high probability that emotional distress will occur. (www.wcl.american.edu)
 * //__Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress__//**


 * Example:** State Rubbish Collectors Ass’n v. Siliznoff- D threatens that if P, a garbage collector, does not pay over part of his garbage collection proceeds to D and his henchmen, D will severely beat P. Since D’s conduct is extreme and outrageous, and since he has intended to cause P distress, D is liable for infliction of emotional distress. ( www.wcl.american.edu)

Defamation of character involves wrongfully hurting a person’s good reputation. Breaching this duty either in writing or other permanent form involves the tort of libel and breaching this duty orally involves the tort of slander. (Cross & Miller, 2012) Another type of defamation is when a false statement of fact is made about a person’s business, or product of legal ownership rights of property.
 * //__Defamation__//**

**Elements of Defamation:** The basis of the tort of defamation is the publication of a statement or statements which means that the defamatory statements are communicated either on purpose or by accident to people other than the defamed party.
 * Libel-** To recover damages in a libel case, the plaintiff need not prove that he or she was actually injured physically but in nonspecific harms such as disgrace, or dishonor in the eyes of the community, humiliation, injured reputation or emotional distress. (Cross & Miller, 2012)
 * Slander-**To recover damages in a slander case, the plaintiff must show that the sladerous statement causes him or her to suffer actual economic or monetary losses. (Cross & Miller, 2012) There are four types of utterances considered to be slander per se, (1) a statement about another having a particular disease, (2) a statement that another committed improprieties while engaging in a profession or trade, (3) a statement that another has committed or has been imprisoned for a serious crime, and (4) a statement that a person is unchaste or has engaged in serious sexual misconduct. (Cross & Miller, 2012)
 * Public Figures-** are considered fair game unless defamation statements are made malice which is either knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard of the truth.

__**//Invasion of Privacy//**__
Invasion of privacy is when a person must have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the invasion must be highly offensive**//.//**(Cross & Miller, 2012)

__**Four types of Invasion of privacy:**__
 * Elements of Invasion of Privacy**
 * Appropriation of identity-** Is using a person’s name, picture, or other likeness for commercial purposes without permission.
 * Intrusion into an individual’s affairs or seclusion-** Invading someone’s home, personal computer, eavesdropping by wiretap, compulsory blood testing and window peeping without authorization is an invasion of privacy.
 * False light-** is publication of information that places a person in a false light.
 * Public disclosure of private facts-** is when a person publicly discloses private facts about an individual that someone else would deem embarrassing or objectionable.


 * Example** In 2010, ESPN sports reporter Erin Andrews sued convicted stalker Michael Barrett and the hotel where she was staying for invasion of privacy after Barrett secretly videotaped her in the nude through the peephole in her door and posted the videos on the internet. Andrews had every reason to expect privacy within her locked hotel room, while Barrett used special technology to see into her room.(FindLaw.com)

**//__Appropriation__//**
The use of another person’s name, likeness, or other identifying characteristic, without permission and for benefit of the user, constitutes the tort of appropriation. (Cross & Miller, 2012) **Elements of Appropriation**
 * Degree of Likeness-** that is required to impose liability for the tort of appropriation varies.
 * Publicity as a Property Right-** allows public figures, celebrities, and entertainers to sue anyone who uses their images for commercial benefit without their permission. (Cross & Miller, 2012)


 * Example:** Vanna White, hostess of Wheel of Fortune, sued Samsung Electronics for creating a robotic image very similar to her without her permission. The robotic image had a gown, wig, and jewelry placed in a setting that resembled the Wheel of Fortune Set. The courts ruled in White’s favor.

The tort of fraudulent misrepresentation or fraud involves intentional deceit for person gain. (Cross & Miller, 2012) Fraud exists only when a person represents as a fact something he or she knows is untrue.
 * Fraudulent Misrepresentation **

This tort has several elements. (Cross & Miller, 2012)
 * Elements Fraudulent Misrepresentation**
 * A misrepresentation of material facts/conditions with knowledge that they are false or with reckless disregard for the truth.
 * An intent to induce another party to rely on the misrepresentation.
 * A justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation by deceived party.
 * Damages suffered as a result of that reliance.
 * A causal connection between the misrepresentation and the injury suffered.


 * //Example://** A financial advisor representing both a buyer and seller of real property may be liable for fraud if he knows that the property contains toxic chemicals and fails to tell this to the buyer. (www.inc.com)

Abusive or Frivolous litigation is the filing of a lawsuit without legitimate grounds with malice. Alternatively, the use of legal process in an improper manner. (Cross & Miller, 2012) **Elements of Abusive or Litigation**
 * //__Abusive or Frivolous Litigation__//**
 * Malicious prosecution-** if the party that sued did so out of malice and loses the case the other party can sue for malicious prosecution.
 * Abuse of process-** applies to any person using legal process against another in an improper manner. Abuse of process could consist of wrongful use of subpoenas, court orders to attach or seize property and other types of process.
 * Examples**
 * []**

=3.0 Cyber Torts=

//by Jennifer Hill//
The cyber tort is a wrongful act that is commited in cyber space. Most cyber torts involve defamation. (Cross & Miller, 2012) See also [|PSU Cyber Tort Wiki]

__3.1 Online Defamation__
The new reliance on the internet for spreading media and marketing businesses leads to the potential to spread rumors and harm to masses in a click of a button. This leads to a new area of litigation. The primary issue with online defamation, slanderous or libelous comments, is determining who is the originator of the defamation. The internet service provider (ISP) is where one would start when trying to identify a person posting defamatory remarks. This can be done only when ordered by the courts. Examples of media and online defamation can be found in the following links; [|Online defamation doubles in England], [|Finkel vs. Facebook], [|11.3M award for online defamation].

__3.2 Spreading Spam__
Spam is "junk mail" that typically consists of solicitations and unwanted messages flooding ones e-mail inbox. Some states have regulations to allow people to opt out of receiving messages from solicitors. The Federal goverment in 2003 passed an act called Controlling the Assult of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN-SPAM) to do the following; "prohibit certain types of spamming activities, including the use of a false return address and the use of false, misleading, or deceptive information when sending e-mail. The statute also prohibits the use of “dictionary attacks”—sending messages to randomly generated e-mail addresses—and the “harvesting” of e-mail addresses from Web sites through the use of special-ized software (Cross & Miller, 2012)." Following the CAN-SPAM act was the U.S. Safe Web Act of 2006 to protect international borders by allowing the Federal Trade Commission to partner with ISP's in an effort to cut down on spamming, fraud, and spyware from other nations.

=4.0 Negligence Torts=

//by Matthew Elwart//
Negligence is among the most prevalent type of lawsuits brought against businesses today. The tort of negligence occurs when someone suffers injury because of another's failure to live up to a required duty of care. (Cross & Miller, 2012) media type="youtube" key="u6ynTbY944Q" height="251" width="448"

There are four elements of negligence that must be proven in order for a negligence tort to be successful, duty, breach, causation, and damages.

4.1 Duty
Duty is that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. The duty of care is central to negligence torts. This concept "arises from the notion that if we are to live in society with other people, some actions can be tolerated and some cannot, and some actions are reasonable and some are not." (Cross & Miller, 2012. p. 280) What this means is, a person is allowed to go about their business and live their life as they please provided that any action(s) they commit do not harm or cause injury to the interest of others. The duty to care can be breached through omission or acts, such as forgetting to take a car out of gear before exiting or accidentally striking another car at a stop light.

The Duty to Warn
For example, if the owner of a shop is cleaning the floor during business hours, the owner has a duty to warn business invitees of risks, by taking such action as placing a caution/warning sign in the area being mopped, to notify customers that the floor is wet and presents a slipping hazard. Negligence Duty

Obvious Risks
There are exceptions to the duty of care though. When the risk is obvious, the owner is not required to warn patrons. For example, the act of participating in a sanctioned car race carries risk of being in an accident and possibly being injured in the accident. The participant in the race assumes this risk and other risks. Similarly, athletic contest participants also assume a degree of risk, such as bodily injury or death.

Duty of Professionals
Persons of a profession, such as a doctor, engineer, lawyer, architect, or other professionally accredited worker have a duty that goes beyond that of the reasonable person standard. The specialized training and knowledge possessed by these individuals requires that those individuals practice their profession consistent with defined and accepted standards. If the professional "violates his or her duty of care towards a client, the client may bring a suit against the professional, alleging malpractice, which is essentially professional negligence. An example of professional negligence would be a civil engineer being hired by a city to assess and correct a structural flaw in a bridge, and the end result is the bridge failing due to an incorrect joist being used in the repair. The city could then pursue a tort against that engineer.

4.2 Breach
When it has been determined that the defendant in a tort owes a duty to the plaintiff, it must then be determined if the defendant breached this duty in order for the tort to be successful. The determination of whether or not the defendant breached his/her duty is both subjective and objective. In the subjective case, when a person knowingly commits an act or exposes another to harm or loss, duty has been breached. Similarly, the objective case involves the reasonable person standard. The reasonable person standard is "society's judgement of how an ordinarily prudent person should act." (Cross & Miller, 2012. p. 281) If the court determines that the act in question violates the reasonable person standard, the defendant has breached their duty and is liable.

4.3 Causation
Causation is the third element that must be proven in order for a tort to be successful. When a defendant breaches their duty to care and the result is an injury to another, it must be determined that the defendant's act indeed caused the harm. If the plaintiff would have otherwise been unharmed for not the negligent act, it is said that there is causation in fact. A common test used to determine if causation in fact has occurred is the but for test. The but for test states "'but for' the wrongful act, the injury would not have occurred." (Cross & Miller, 2012. p. 282) The point of the but for test is to establish a cause and effect relationship between injury and act. It is important to note though, that correlation does not imply causation. An example would be the correlation between the captain of an airline turning on the fasten seat belt sign during cruise and the plane then encountering turbulence. The act of turning on the sign does not cause the turbulence to materialize. Similarly, in a legal context, a person filing suit against a fast food restaurant like McDonald's or Wendy's alleging that consuming their food made them obese. This would be false because it is the combination of unhealthy life habits, a sedentary work environment and/or genetic factors that caused the weight gain.

media type="youtube" key="UNonyq1yhiE" height="315" width="420"

Proximate Cause
Proximate cause is the legal cause that takes place when "the connection between an act and an injury is strong enough to justify imposing liability." (Cross & Miller, 2012. p. 282) A key factor in determining whether or not proximate cause exists is to determine whether or not the damages incurred were foreseeable or too remotely connected to the act for the defendant to be liable. For example, driver A is not paying attention and is approaching driver B stopped at a traffic light. The driver A collides with driver B, causing driver B's car to be pushed into an electric pole, which cracks the pole. The electric pole than collapses onto the roof of a toy factory, which causes a fire, resulting in the factory being destroyed and the owner of the toy factory loses millions of dollars. It is obvious that driver A is liable to driver B for causing the collision, but is driver A liable to the owner of the factory for causing the fire that destroyed the building? If the owner of the toy factory were to file suit against driver A, the court must answer the question of whether or not driver A colliding with driver B would have foreseen the electric pole falling on the factory and causing the fire. In this example, it is likely that the court would decide that yes, driver A's actions did constitute causation in fact, but that action was not the proximate cause to the fire being started. With this decision, the "causation requirement has not been met - and the defendant will not normally be liable to the plaintiff." (Cross & Miller, 2012. p. 282)

4.4 Damages
Damages refer to the compensation a plaintiff receives from a defendant in a successful tort case. "For a tort to have been committed, the plaintiff must have suffered a //legally recognizable// injury." (Cross & Miller, 2012. p.284) In order for the plaintiff to collect damages, some sort of injury must have occurred, such as loss of property, damage to property, personal injury, or harm to a protected interest. If for a given negligent act, there is no injury or harm done, there is nothing to compensate for, therefore there is no tort. An example would be a customer at Home Depot carelessly carrying a 2x4 and striking another customer in the head, causing a laceration. The customer carrying the 2x4 may be liable in tort since the customer suffered personal injury.

Compensatory Damages vs Punitive Damages
In tort cases involving negligence, it is common for the plaintiff to receive compensatory damages. Compensatory damages are awarded to the plaintiff in the amount of money it will take to replace what was lost, i.e. totaled car, medical expenses, etc. Punitive damages on the other hand are meant to punish the defendant. The court will award punitive damages if the defendant's conduct was //grossly negligent,// meaning that the defendant intentionally failed to perform a duty with reckless disregard of the consequences to others." (Cross & Miller, 2012. p. 284) A famous case involving punitive damages in the amount of $81M involved the widow of a man who died of lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking cigarettes, and Philip Morris, Inc. [|Punitive Damages]

media type="youtube" key="tD55SLlQIjs" height="251" width="448" Defenses to Negligence The most common defense to a negligence tort is for the defense to show that the plaintiffs failed to prove one or more of the four required elements for negligence. Should the defense be unable to prevail in showing how the plaintiff did not prove all the negligence elements, there are "three basic affirmative defenses in negligence cases (defenses that a defendant can use to avoid liability even if the facts are as the plaintiff states): //assumption of risk, superseding cause, and contributory and comparative negligence.//" (Cross & Miller, 2012. p. 284)

Assumption of Risk
The assumption of risk defense revolves around the defendant proving that the plaintiff knowingly, and willingly entered into a risky situation. When this occurs, the plaintiff is not allowed to recover damages. A successful defense using assumption of risk involves two requirements, "(1) knowledge of the risk and (2) voluntary assumption of the risk." (Cross & Miller, 2012. p. 284) The assumption of risk defense is commonly used in case where the plaintiff participated in a recreational activity, such as surfing, sky diving, skiing, or horseback riding. It is also important to note that spectators at sporting events assume the risk of being injured by balls leaving the field of play, or players falling into the seats during play. [|Runners Die While Participating in Marathon]

Superseding Cause
The superseding cause defense is used when an unforeseeable event severs the casual connection between a negligent act and the injury to a third party. The unforeseeable event serves as a superseding cause, that is, "it relieves a defendant of liability for injuries caused by the intervening event." (Cross & Miller, 2012. p. 286) For example, consider a person recklessly swinging a baseball bat outside their home and striking a passerby in the leg, breaking the bone. While the passerby is waiting for medical assistance to arrive, a car crashes up the road and a wheel becomes dislodged, rolls down the street and strikes the passerby in the head resulting in a concussion. In this, the person swinging the baseball bat is liable for the broken leg suffered by the passerby, but will not be responsible for the concussion suffered since the risk of a car crash up the road was not a foreseeable event.

Contributory Negligence
It is the responsibility of all individuals to exercise a degree of care for looking out for themselves. Historically, under "the common law doctrine of contributory negligence, a plaintiff who was also negligent (failed to exercise a reasonable degree of care) could not recover anything from the defendant." (Cross & Miller, 2012. p. 286) This stipulated that no matter how small the negligence displayed by the plaintiff was relative to the defendant's own negligence, the plaintiff would be barred from collecting any damages.

Comparative Negligence
Currently, a majority of the states have adopted a comparative negligence standard. The idea behind comparative negligence is such that the negligence between the plaintiff and defendant is factored into the decision of awarded damages. Depending on what the jurisdiction the tort is committed in, the plaintiff could be facing a pure comparative negligence scenario or a modified comparative negligence scenario.

Pure Comparative Negligence
California and New York have a pure comparative negligence standard which allows a plaintiff to recover damages from a defendant even if the plaintiff's share of fault is greater than the defendant. In this system, "a judge or jury assigns a percentage of fault to each responsible party and then apportions the damages award accordingly." (Cross & Miller, 2012. p. 287) This means that even if the plaintiff's act of negligence is significant, he/she will still be able to collect a share of damages. For example, if a plaintiff is involved in a wreck and it is determined in court that the defendant was only 25% responsible for the accident due to the plaintiffs contributing negligence, the plaintiff will still be able to collect 25% of the damages for the injuries obtained by the defendant.

Modified Comparative Fault
A majority of jurisdictions in the United States have a modified comparative fault system. Under the modified comparative fault system, the party who is responsible for the majority of injuries suffered to themselves are not entitled to any damages collection. There are two variations to the modified comparative fault systems, "those that follow a '50 percent rule' and those that follow a '51 percent rule'." (Cross & Miller, 2012. p.288) The 50 percent rule states that if the plaintiff is responsible for 50 percent or more of the fault, he/she is barred from being able to collect any damages. Thus the threshold for being able to collect under the 50 percent rule is the plaintiff must be responsible for 49 percent or less of the injuries suffered. Under the 51 percent rule, the plaintiff is unable to collect any damages if his/her actions contributed to more than half of the cause of the accident. media type="youtube" key="-U60cdi6RHQ" height="283" width="378"

4.6 Special Negligence Doctrines and Statutes
There are a number of special doctrines and statutes for negligence that play a role in a plaintiff's liability. The following discussed below is not an inclusive list.

Res Ipsa Loquitur
In most negligence cases, the burden of proof lies within the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was negligent. There are certain scenarios though where the courts will presume negligence has occurred and the burden of proof lies on the defendant to prove they were not negligent. Res Ipsa Loquitur is latin for 'the thing speaks for itself.' Meaning, it is obvious that the injury or harm would otherwise have not occurred in the absence of any negligent actions. For example, cases involving res ipsa loquitor usually involve medical malpractice suits. If a patient is undergoing a surgery to remove a gallbladder, and it is later determined the surgeon left a scalpel inside the patient, the patient can file a negligence tort in court citing res ipsa loquitur since it is obvious a scalpel would have never been left inside the patient in the absence of the doctor's negligence. It is important to note that "for the doctrine of //res ipsa loquitur// to apply, the event must have been within the defendant's power to control and not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff." (Cross & Miller, 2012. p. 288)

Negligence Per Se
Negligence per se occurs when a person breaks a statute or an ordinance that provides for a criminal penalty. The statute in question needs to be defined in such a way that that it seeks to prevent the injury suffered by the plaintiff, while defining the conduct to be expected as well as by whom and when that conducted is to be expected. When a defendant violates the statute, he/she breaches his/her duty to the plaintiff. In other words, if a person's action violates a law or regulation, the actions are negligent. An real life example of negligence per se occurred in Delaware involving documentary maker Michael Moore and Debra Wright. Moore violated a Delaware statute for inattentive driving. While backing his truck out of a parking spot, Moore collided with Wright's car and was then cited for inattentive driving. The following day, Wright began to experience back pain, which eventually required surgery to correct. Wright then filed suit against Moore for negligence per se. After going through the appeals process, "the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that the inattentive driving statute sets forth a sufficiently specific standard of conduct to warrant application of negligence per se." (Cross & Miller, 2012. p. 288) media type="youtube" key="c-GhQklh_jg" height="219" width="432"

Danger Invites Rescue Doctrine
The danger invites rescue doctrine is in place to protect an individual who helps another in a dangerous situation by allowing the rescuer to pursue damages against the individual responsible for creating the dangerous situation. The "idea is that the rescuer should not be held liable for any damages because he or she did not cause the danger and because danger invites rescue." (Cross & Miller, 2012. p.289) Consider a forklift driver at a lumber not not paying attention and about to strike a consumer. Another customer sees the other customer about to be hit, rushes in, and pushes the consumer out of the way, and is then struck by the forklift. The driver of the forklift will be liable for the injuries to the rescuing customer, even though the rescuer inserted his/herself into danger to protect the other customer. Additionally, the forklift driver would be liable for any other injuries suffered by bystanders in the course of the accident.

Good Samaritan Statutes
Good Samaritan statutes are in place to protect the person assisting. The statutes do not allow "someone who is aided voluntarily by another cannot turn around and sue the 'Good Samaritan' for negligence." (Cross & Miller, 2012. p. 289) These laws are mainly in place to project off duty doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals who offer their expertise in emergency situations, such as accident scenes.

Dram Shop Acts
Dram shop acts hold the bar owner and/or bartender liable for any "injuries caused by a person who became intoxicated while drinking at the bar or who was already intoxicated when served by the bartender." (Cross & Miller, 2012. p. 289) This statute is also extended to private homes in some states where the host of the party can be liable for injuries caused by guests who become inebriated at the party. media type="youtube" key="1LzMjQXQC1o" height="251" width="475"

References

Cross, F. & Miller, R. (2012) The legal environment of business. 8th ed. Canada. South-Western Cengage Learning. // Definition of defensive medicine //. Medterms.com, 2004. Web. 5 Jul 2012. . "Caps on Medical Malpractice Awards." // medicalmalpracticehelp.com //. Newsome Melton, n.d. Web. 5 Jul 2012. Studdert, David. "Defensive Medicine and Tort Reform: A Wide View." // Journal of General Internal Medicine //. N.p., 2010. Web. 5 Jul 2012. "Torts Outline." Web.7 Jul 2012. [] "Business Torts: Misrepresentation Contract Interference and Unfair Competition, Contracts Article.Inc.Article.Inc.com 1999. Web.7 Jul 2012. [] "Invasion of Privacy" Web. 12 Jul 2012 .FindLaw.com []