The four essential elements of common law defamation are: (1) a defamatory statement, (2) the statement was "of or concerning" the plaintiff, (3) the statement was published to a third party, and (4) the plaintiff suffered damages as a result.

Libel is defamation in written or other tangible form and is generally actionable without proof of special damages. Slander is spoken defamation and typically requires proof of special damages unless it falls under the category of slander per se.

Actual malice is defined as knowledge that a statement was false or reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. This high standard applies to public officials and public figures in defamation claims due to First Amendment considerations.

Intrusion upon seclusion occurs when a defendant intentionally intrudes upon the solitude, seclusion, or private affairs of another in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. An example is unauthorized wiretapping of a private phone line.

The key element in appropriation of name or likeness is the defendant's use of the plaintiff's name, image, or identity for a commercial purpose without the plaintiff's consent, thereby exploiting the economic value of their identity.

To establish intentional interference with contractual relations, a plaintiff must show: (1) a valid contract, (2) the defendant's knowledge of the contract, (3) the defendant's intentional acts to induce a breach or interfere with the contract, (4) an actual breach or disruption, and (5) resulting damages.

"Scope of employment" refers to activities that an employee is hired to perform, occur substantially within the authorized time and space limits of their job, and are motivated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer.

One exception to the rule that employers are not liable for independent contractors' torts is when the activity involved is inherently dangerous, meaning it poses a significant risk of harm that cannot be eliminated by reasonable care.

The single publication rule states that all copies of a publication are treated as a single publication for the purposes of a defamation action, limiting the number of lawsuits that can arise from widespread dissemination of the same defamatory material.

When a private individual sues for defamation involving a matter of public concern, they must generally show at least negligence on the part of the defendant. To recover presumed or punitive damages, they typically must demonstrate actual malice.

This lecture comprehensively explores four distinct areas of tort law. Defamation protects reputation from false statements, outlining its elements and constitutional limitations. The four privacy torts—intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation, public disclosure of private facts, and false light—safeguard personal autonomy and identity. Economic torts, including interference with contracts and prospective advantage, address wrongful interference with business relationships. Finally, vicarious liability examines how responsibility for tortious acts can extend to others through relationships like employer-employee.

To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must prove duty, breach, causation (both actual and proximate), and damages. These four elements demonstrate that the defendant had an obligation, failed to meet that obligation, and that failure directly and foreseeably caused the plaintiff to suffer actual harm.

The Cardozo view of duty, primarily from Palsgraf, holds that a defendant only owes a duty to those persons within the zone of foreseeable harm resulting from their conduct. In contrast, the Andrews view argues that a duty is owed to everyone if the defendant's conduct creates a general risk of harm, regardless of direct foreseeability.

A professional, such as a doctor, is held to the standard of care of a reasonably prudent member of their profession under similar circumstances. This objective standard considers the knowledge, skill, and care ordinarily possessed and exercised by professionals in that particular field or specialty.

Res ipsa loquitur, meaning "the thing speaks for itself," allows a jury to infer negligence when the event is of a type that ordinarily does not occur without negligence, the instrumentality causing the harm was in the defendant's exclusive control, and the injury was not due to the plaintiff's own action. An example is a surgical instrument being left inside a patient after an operation.

The "but for" test is used to establish actual cause, requiring the plaintiff to show that but for the defendant's negligent act, the harm would not have occurred. The "substantial factor" test is applied in cases with multiple sufficient causes, where the defendant's conduct is considered a cause-in-fact if it was a significant contributor to the resulting harm.

Negligence per se is a doctrine where violation of a statute that was designed to protect a particular class of persons from a specific type of harm is considered conclusive evidence of breach of duty. For this doctrine to apply, the plaintiff must be within the protected class, and the harm suffered must be of the type the statute intended to prevent.

Generally, there is no legal duty to affirmatively act or rescue someone in peril, even if it can be done safely. However, an exception exists when there is a special relationship between the parties, such as a parent and child or a common carrier and its passengers, which creates a duty to take reasonable steps to aid the other.

A landowner owes a licensee a duty to warn them of known dangers on the property that are not obvious. However, the landowner has no duty to inspect for unknown dangers or to make the premises safe for the licensee.

Under pure comparative negligence, a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the percentage of their own fault, regardless of how high that percentage is. In contrast, modified comparative negligence allows a plaintiff to recover only if their fault is below a certain threshold (usually 50% or less), otherwise their recovery is barred.

The three main categories of activities or things for which strict liability is typically imposed are abnormally dangerous activities, wild animals (and sometimes domestic animals with known dangerous propensities), and defective products (under the theory of strict products liability).

This lecture on torts law explains the fundamental principles of negligence, outlining its four core elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages, alongside related doctrines such as res ipsa loquitur and negligence per se. The text details various standards of care and methods for establishing breach, including the Hand formula. It further analyzes causation and the requirement of actual harm for negligence claims. Finally, the lecture transitions to strict liability, discussing its application to abnormally dangerous activities, animals, and defective products, and briefly mentions defenses applicable to both negligence and strict liability.

Intentional torts require a volitional act by the defendant and a specific intent to cause harm or offensive contact, or knowledge with substantial certainty that such a consequence will result. This purposeful interference distinguishes them from the unintentional nature of negligence and the focus on the act itself in strict liability.

Harmful contact in battery refers to contact that results in physical injury or pain to the plaintiff. Offensive contact, on the other hand, is contact that would offend a reasonable person's sense of personal dignity, even if it does not cause physical harm.

A key element required for assault, but not for battery, is that the plaintiff must have a reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact at the time the defendant acts. In battery, the plaintiff need not be aware of the contact when it occurs.

Confinement for false imprisonment involves intentionally restraining the plaintiff to a bounded area through physical barriers, force, threats, or failure to provide a means of escape when there is a duty to do so. Moral pressure or future threats are generally considered insufficient to constitute confinement.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct that exceeds all bounds tolerated by a civilized society and intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress. The threshold for outrageousness may be lowered if the defendant is in a position of power or if the plaintiff is known to be particularly vulnerable.

For trespass to land, the intent requirement applies only to the act of entering the land or causing a physical invasion. Knowledge that the land belongs to another is not necessary; even a mistaken belief of ownership does not negate the intent to enter.

The key distinction between trespass to chattels and conversion lies in the degree of interference with the plaintiff's personal property. Trespass to chattels involves a less significant interference resulting in dispossession or minor harm, while conversion involves a substantial interference requiring the defendant to pay the full market value of the chattel.

The doctrine of transferred intent states that if a defendant intends to commit one of five intentional torts (battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattels) against one person but instead commits a different one of these torts or affects a different person, the intent transfers. This holds the defendant liable despite the misdirected action.

The two broad categories of defenses to intentional torts discussed are consent-based defenses and protective privileges. An example of a consent-based defense is express consent to medical treatment, and an example of a protective privilege is self-defense against an imminent threat of unlawful force.

Under the majority rule, deadly force is permissible in self-defense only when the defendant reasonably believes they are facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. The force used must be proportionate to the threat.

This lecture provides a foundational overview of intentional torts, which require a volitional act and specific intent to cause harm or offensive contact, distinguishing them from negligence. It meticulously defines core intentional torts such as battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion, highlighting their key elements and frequently tested nuances. The lecture also comprehensively examines various defenses to intentional torts, including consent-based privileges and protective privileges like self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, and the necessities. Finally, it explains the doctrine of transferred intent and reinforces understanding with hypothetical scenarios, emphasizing the importance of intent and context in determining liability.

Elements of a Crime: A crime generally has two components: the actus reus, the physical or external part, and the mens rea, the mental or internal feature. The actus reus generally includes a voluntary act that causes social harm. Causation links the voluntary act to the social harm. The requirement of a voluntary act is generally an implicit element of criminal statutes supported by common law. In exceptional cases, an omission (failure to act when there is a legal duty) can serve as the basis for criminal responsibility. A duty to act can arise from common law, statute, or contract. Most human acts are considered voluntary, with involuntary acts including reflexive actions, spasms, seizures, and movements during unconsciousness or sleep.

Mens rea refers to criminal intent or a "guilty mind". It is the state of mind statutorily required to convict a defendant of a particular crime. The prosecution typically must prove mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt. The Model Penal Code (MPC) categorizes culpable mental states into four levels: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently.

Concurrence (or contemporaneity) is the need to prove that the actus reus and mens rea occurred simultaneously, except in strict liability crimes. The single transaction principle allows a sequence of inevitably linked events to be viewed as one transaction, where mens rea formed at any point during the sequence can suffice.

Classification of Crimes: Crimes can be classified in several ways, most commonly as felonies (punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year) and misdemeanors (lesser offenses usually punishable by a fine or incarceration for less than one year). Crimes are also categorized as inchoate offenses and strict liability offenses. At common law, there were nine major felonies and various misdemeanors.

Inchoate Offenses: Inchoate offenses (attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy) involve steps taken toward committing another crime, even if the final harmful result does not occur. Attempt involves preparatory conduct that comes dangerously close to success (common law proximity test) or constitutes a substantial step strongly corroborative of criminal purpose (MPC substantial step test). Solicitation occurs when one intentionally entices another to commit a crime. Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, coupled with an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. The Pinkerton doctrine can hold a conspirator liable for foreseeable crimes committed by co-conspirators. The merger doctrine often prevents conviction for both an attempt or solicitation and the completed offense, but conspiracy typically does not merge. Renunciation or withdrawal may be a defense to inchoate offenses in some jurisdictions.

Specific Crimes: Homicide is the unlawful killing of a human being, categorized into murder, manslaughter, and sometimes criminally negligent homicide. Murder is typically defined as unlawful killing with malice aforethought. US law for murder varies by jurisdiction, often with degrees of murder (first, second, sometimes third) and different classifications in the Model Penal Code (purposely/knowingly, reckless, negligent). Property crimes include larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, robbery, burglary, and arson, each involving different ways property rights are violated.

Defenses to Criminal Liability: Defenses are broadly divided into justifications (admitting actus reus and mens rea but claiming the act was legally permissible) and excuses (conceding the act was wrongful but arguing the actor should not be held criminally responsible). Justification defenses include self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, necessity, and law enforcement privilege. Excuse defenses include insanity, intoxication, duress, entrapment, and mistake.

The insanity defense concerns the defendant's state of mind, potentially negating mens rea, with various legal tests like the M'Naghten Rule, Durh

A justification defense claims that the defendant's conduct was lawful under the circumstances, while an excuse defense concedes the wrongfulness of the act but argues the defendant should not be held criminally responsible. An example of justification is self-defense; an example of excuse is insanity.

The core elements of self-defense include an actual and reasonable belief that the use of force was necessary to prevent the imminent use of unlawful force by another. Deadly force is permissible only when the defendant reasonably believes they are facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

The majority rule (and the Model Penal Code approach) does not require retreat before using deadly force unless the defendant knows they can avoid the threat with complete safety. The minority rule, or "stand your ground" rule, permits individuals to meet deadly force with deadly force, even if retreat is safely possible, as long as they are in a place where they have a legal right to be.

The defense of necessity allows a defendant to commit a crime to avoid a greater imminent harm when no adequate legal alternative is available. Two key limitations are that the defense is generally not available if the defendant caused the situation and is typically not a defense to homicide.

The M’Naghten Rule states that a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if, due to a mental disease or defect, they did not know the nature and quality of their act, or if they did know it, they did not know it was wrong. The central focus of this test is the defendant's cognitive understanding of their actions and their wrongfulness.

Voluntary intoxication, the result of the defendant's intentional consumption of intoxicants, may negate the specific intent required for certain crimes. Involuntary intoxication, which occurs through coercion, fraud, or mistake, is treated more like insanity and may be a defense to any crime if it negates the necessary mental state.

Duress can be a valid defense if the defendant committed a crime under the threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to themselves or others, the threat would overcome the will of a person of ordinary firmness, and there was no reasonable opportunity to escape. It is generally not a defense to homicide.

The subjective test for entrapment focuses on the predisposition of the defendant to commit the crime. If the defendant was already inclined to commit the crime and the government merely provided an opportunity, the defense of entrapment will likely fail, regardless of the government's conduct.

The general rule is that mistake of law is not a defense; ignorance of the law is no excuse. One recognized exception is when the defendant reasonably relied on an official interpretation of the law by a public official responsible for interpreting or enforcing that law (entrapment by estoppel).

Due process guarantees fundamental fairness in the criminal process, which includes the right of a defendant to present a defense. This means defendants must have the opportunity to introduce evidence, challenge the prosecution's case, and have their defenses properly considered by the court and jury.

This lecture provides a comprehensive overview of defenses to criminal liability, categorizing them into justifications, where the act is deemed lawful, and excuses, where responsibility is negated due to factors like incapacity or coercion. It explores specific justification defenses such as self-defense and necessity, and excuse defenses including insanity and duress, detailing their legal standards and variations. The lecture also examines procedural and constitutional limitations, like due process and double jeopardy, which influence the application and availability of these defenses in the legal system. Understanding these principles is crucial for analyzing criminal cases and appreciating the balance between state power and individual rights.

Inchoate offenses are "incomplete" crimes that involve steps taken toward committing another crime, even if the final harmful result never occurs. The three main types discussed are attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy.

The two primary elements required for attempt are the intent to commit a specific crime and an overt act that constitutes a substantial step toward its commission. The mental state requires a specific intent to achieve the prohibited result.

The proximity test for attempt requires the defendant's actions to be dangerously close to the completion of the intended crime, while the Model Penal Code's substantial step test is more expansive, focusing on conduct strongly corroborative of criminal purpose.

Solicitation occurs when a person entices, encourages, commands, or requests another person to engage in criminal conduct, with the intent that the crime be committed. The crime of solicitation is complete the moment the request is made with the requisite intent, regardless of whether the other person acts on it.

The actus reus of conspiracy is the agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, often requiring an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. The mens rea includes both the intent to agree and the intent that the object of the agreement be achieved.

Malice aforethought for murder can be established through intent to kill (express malice), intent to cause serious bodily harm resulting in death, depraved heart murder (extreme recklessness), and felony murder (killing during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony).

Voluntary manslaughter involves an intentional killing committed in the heat of passion resulting from adequate provocation, without a cooling-off period. Involuntary manslaughter, on the other hand, involves an unintentional killing resulting from criminal negligence or during the commission of a misdemeanor or non-dangerous felony.

At common law, battery is the unlawful application of force to another person resulting in bodily injury or offensive touching. Assault can be either an attempted battery or the intentional creation of a reasonable apprehension in the victim of imminent bodily harm.

Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the tangible personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it. It differs from embezzlement, where the defendant initially possesses the property lawfully but then fraudulently converts it.

Robbery is defined as the unlawful taking of personal property from the person or presence of another, by force or threat of immediate force, with the intent to permanently deprive. The use of violence or intimidation is the defining characteristic that elevates larceny to robbery.