A comprehensive interactive 1L blueprint for intentional torts, negligence, strict liability, defenses, damages, and final synthesis.
Use the search box below to locate terms such as battery, Palsgraf, res ipsa, strict liability, assumption of risk, or damages.
Search covers the complete text of this website.
Welcome back to the console. We’ve deactivated the Criminal Law punishment modules and re-indexed the library. If Criminal Law is about the state’s “hammer” of justice, Torts is the “scale.” In this capstone, we are revisiting the architecture of civil wrongs—the Law of Wrongs.
In the Law School of America curriculum, we treat Torts as a restorative engine. Its primary output isn't a prison sentence; it’s a Judgment of Damages. We aren't asking if a defendant is “evil”; we are asking if they were “unreasonable” or “responsible” for shifting a loss onto an innocent party.
In the first chamber of the Torts Machine, we analyze Intentional Torts. Here, the “Intent” slider is set to high. However, a common misconception among students is that “intent” requires a desire to cause harm. In Torts, Intent is defined as the desire to bring about a specific physical consequence, or the knowledge with substantial certainty that such a consequence will occur.
Move the slider to review the torts meaning of intent. Harm is not required as the defendant’s desired object; the required focus is the physical consequence or substantial certainty that the consequence will occur.
Battery: The intentional, harmful, or offensive touching of another’s person.
This includes anything connected to the person, such as a cane or a plate they are holding.
Example: If a waiter intentionally and rudely snatches a plate out of a customer's hand, that is a battery, even if they never touched the customer’s skin.
Assault: An intentional act that creates a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery.
Apprehension is not fear; it is the awareness that a battery is about to happen. Words alone generally do not constitute an assault unless coupled with an act.
Example: A defendant swings a baseball bat at a plaintiff’s head. The plaintiff ducks and isn't hit. No battery occurred, but the apprehension of the hit makes it an assault.
False Imprisonment: The intentional confinement of a person within fixed boundaries where the person is aware of the confinement or harmed by it.
If there is a reasonable means of escape known to the plaintiff, there is no false imprisonment.
IIED, or Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: This is the “outrageous” tort. It requires conduct so extreme that it goes beyond all possible bounds of decency.
Unlike other intentional torts, IIED requires proof of severe emotional distress.
The Torts Machine has a unique “Redirect” function. If a defendant intends to commit a tort against Person A, but accidentally hits Person B, the Intent transfers to Person B. This applies to Battery, Assault, False Imprisonment, and Trespass.
Trespass to Land: Any physical invasion of a person’s real property. No damage to the land is required for liability.
Trespass to Chattels and Conversion: These deal with personal property. Trespass to Chattels is a “minor” interference, like taking someone’s bike for a joyride and returning it, while Conversion is a “total” interference, like stealing the bike or destroying it, justifying the full market value as damages.
While intentional torts are focused, Negligence is the vast, multi-tiered engine that handles the majority of civil disputes. Negligence is not about “meaning” to do something; it is about failing to behave as a Reasonable Person would under similar circumstances. For the machine to output a “Check,” the plaintiff must clear four rigorous checkpoints.
The law does not require us to be our brother’s keeper, but it does require us to act with care if our conduct creates a risk.
Generally no duty, except to avoid “willful and wanton” harm. There is a special rule for “Attractive Nuisances” like swimming pools that entice children.
Social guests are owed a duty to warn of known, hidden dangers.
Customers and business visitors receive the highest duty. The landowner must inspect the premises and make them safe.
Did the defendant's conduct fall below the required Standard of Care? To calculate this, the Law School of America uses the Learned Hand Formula:
The Logic Gate:
If the cost of the fix, B, is less than the expected harm, P × L, then failing to take the precaution is a Breach.
Enter sample values. If Burden is less than Probability times Loss, the machine flags a breach.
This is the “Golden Chain” we studied in Criminal Law, but with a civil focus. You need both links to hold.
In Torts, there is no “Attempt.” If you are negligent but no one gets hurt, the machine resets. A plaintiff must prove actual physical, emotional, or economic harm.
The Thin-Skull Victim Rule: Once you breach your duty and cause a foreseeable type of injury, you are liable for the full extent of the damage, even if the plaintiff had a pre-existing condition that made the damage much worse than expected. You take your plaintiff as you find them.
In certain zones of the Torts Machine, the “Breach” checkpoint is bypassed. In Strict Liability, the defendant is liable even if they exercised the utmost care. We don't care how “reasonable” you were; the activity itself is so risky that you “own” the results.
If you engage in an activity that involves a high risk of serious harm that cannot be eliminated by reasonable care, and the activity is not of common usage, like blasting with dynamite, you are strictly liable for any resulting harm.
Wild Animals: Owners are strictly liable for injuries caused by wild animals, such as lions, bears, even “tame” ones.
Domesticated Animals: Owners are generally only liable if they have knowledge of the animal’s “vicious propensities,” known as the “One Bite Rule.”
This is a massive sector of modern tort law. When a manufacturer or seller puts a product into the “stream of commerce,” they are strictly liable if it is defective and unreasonably dangerous.
The “one in a million” product that came off the assembly line wrong.
The entire product line is dangerous because of a poor design choice, such as an SUV prone to rolling over.
The product is fine, but it lacks instructions or warnings about non-obvious dangers.
Just as we saw in Criminal Law, the Torts Machine has a defensive panel. Even if a plaintiff proves Duty, Breach, Causation, and Damages, the defendant can fight back.
This is the most common defense. We look at the plaintiff’s own conduct.
Contributory Negligence, Old Rule: If the plaintiff was even 1% at fault, they get zero money. This is still the law in only a few jurisdictions.
Pure Comparative Negligence: We calculate the plaintiff's percentage of fault and subtract it from the total. If the plaintiff is 90% at fault and has $100k in damages, they still get $10k.
Modified Comparative Negligence: The plaintiff can only recover if they are less than 50% or 51% at fault. If they cross that line, they get nothing.
If a plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly encountered a known risk, they cannot sue for the resulting injury.
Example: If you go to a baseball game, you “assume the risk” of being hit by a foul ball.
Primarily for intentional torts.
Consent: If you agree to the contact, like in a contact sport, you cannot sue for battery.
Self-Defense: Just like in Criminal Law, you can use reasonable force to protect yourself, though in Torts, we are usually arguing about whether you have to pay for the medical bills of the person you hit.
Use this to visualize contributory negligence, pure comparative negligence, and modified comparative negligence.
As Sarah and Michael finalize the data for this Torts review, they are looking at a system designed to shift losses.
In all cases, the final output is Compensatory Damages, to make the plaintiff whole, and occasionally Punitive Damages, to punish particularly egregious behavior.
We have now reviewed the “Torts Machine” from top to bottom. It is the foundation of civil society—the set of rules that allow us to live together without every accident resulting in a feud. We are ready to move to the next “Big Seven” pillar. Shall we look at the “Agreement Engine” of Contracts, or perhaps the “Ownership Chute” of Property?
Tap the card to flip between prompt and answer.
What is the torts definition of intent?
Which negligence element asks whether the defendant owed care to a foreseeable plaintiff?
Use this scratchpad while reviewing. Notes stay in your browser during this session.
This map condenses the entire review: intentional torts ask what consequence the defendant desired or knew was substantially certain; negligence asks whether unreasonable conduct caused actual damage; strict liability bypasses breach for selected risks; defenses may neutralize or reduce the claim; and damages are the civil law output.