Torts Law Lectures Summary

Harmful contact results in actual injury or pain, while offensive contact is contact that would offend a reasonable person's sense of personal dignity.

The core requirement for intent in intentional torts is acting with the purpose of causing a specific consequence or knowing with substantial certainty that the consequence will result. It does not require malice.

If a defendant intends to throw a rock at Person A (assault) but instead throws it onto Person B's land without permission, the intent to commit assault transfers to trespass to land, making the defendant liable to Person B for trespass.

Public necessity allows interference with property to prevent a greater harm to the public and is a complete defense (no compensation owed). Private necessity allows interference to prevent a greater harm to the defendant or a small group, but the defendant must pay for any damage caused.

The majority (Cardozo) view states that a duty of care is owed only to those within the zone of foreseeable harm. The minority (Andrews) view states that a duty is owed to everyone as long as the conduct poses a general risk of harm.

The Hand Formula (B < P x L) is an algebraic representation used to help assess breach of duty in negligence by comparing the burden of precaution (B) to the foreseeable likelihood of loss (P) multiplied by the probable magnitude of loss (L). If the burden is less than the likely cost of the loss, taking precautions might be deemed reasonable.

The "but-for" test for cause in fact asks whether the plaintiff's harm would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's negligent conduct.

Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine that allows a jury to infer negligence when an accident is of a type that usually doesn't happen without negligence, the instrumentality of harm was under the defendant's control, and the plaintiff didn't contribute to the harm. It might be applied in cases like a barrel falling from a window or a surgical tool left inside a patient.

According to the provided text, landowners owe no duty to undiscovered trespassers.

Two examples of abnormally dangerous activities subject to strict liability are blasting and storing flammable liquids in quantity in an urban area.