Did a person
enter land in the
posession of the
other, or cause a
thing or person to
do so?
Person acts with purpose of
producing a consequence
Yes
Knowing that the consequence
is substantially certain to result
No
Did a person intentionally
remain on land of another?
No
Yes
Prima
Facie:TRESPASS
Yes
Did a person fail to
remove from land a
thing which he is
under a duty to
remove?
Did defendant
seriously interfere
with personal
property?
No
Yes
Yes
Is property
destroyed?
(Or was it a
serious
invasion?)
Yes
No
Contact?
Intent to cause a
harmful or
offensive contact?
No
Intent to
confine?
No
Yes
Yes
Harmful or
offensive?
Yes
Immediate
apprehension?
Results in
confinement?
Yes
Yes
Intend for contact
to be harmful or
offensive?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Assault
No
BATTERY:
Single Intent
BATTERY: Dual
Intent
Conscious
of the
confinement?
Apparent
consent?
Yes
Express or
implied
consent?
Yes
Yes
Prima Facie
Battery;
Defense:
actual consent
No
Emergency?
Yes
Prima Facie
Battery;
Defense:
apparent
consent
Prima Facie
Battery;
Defense:
emergency
Rasonable to
believe P has
committed a
theft?
Yes
CONVERSION
No
Yes
Extreme or
outrageous
conduct?
Yes
FALSE
IMPRISONMENT
No
Intent to cause
severe emotional
distress?
Private land and
person
trespassing is
necessary to
prevent serious
harm?
P suffers severe
emotional
distress?
No
No Trespass:
Necessity
Defense
Yes
Is the land public
and trespass is
necessary to avoid
a public disaster?
Yes
IIED
Did defendant intermeddle
with or dispossess personal
property?
Yes
Yes
Detention is in a
reasonable
manner?
TRESSPASS
TO
CHATTELS
Yes
Reasonable
length of
time?
SHOPKEEPER'S
PRIVILEGE
Is D a landowner?
Is D's breach a
deviation from
custom as the
standard of
care?
No
Yes
Is P a
trespasser?
No
No
Is there a violation of a
statute, regulation,
ordinance?
Was the burden
of preventing the
harm less than
the probability of
loss occuring?
No
Yes
Yes
Would a
reasonable
patient
have
declined
the
procedure?
Was there a
hidden
dangerous
condition?
No
Was the
patient's
injury
caused by
undisclosed
risk?
No
Is the violation
reasonable in light of
the actor's
childhood/physical
disability/physical
incapacitation?
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Was P a
social
guest?
(licensee)
Breach Standard
of Care,
Decision
Causation
(Step3)
Yes
Yes
Was it known?
Yes
Was
there
warning
(if it
wasn't
corrected)?
Breach
- Step3
Yes
No
Was there
reasonable
inspection?
(invitee)
Yes
No
Yes
No
breach
Yes
Breach Standard
of Care,
Injury
Causation
Did the actor not know/
should not have known of
the rule? (or are the rules
confusing?)
No
Would the actor's
compliance involve a
greater risk of physical
harm?
No
No
No
Breach of Duty
by Landowner Step3
No
Did the actor take
reasonable steps in
attempting to comply?
No
Breach:
Negligenceper
se- Step3
Did something
happen but
there is no
evidence of
breach?
Yes
Yes
No
breach
Yes
Yes
Breach Possible
ResIpsa
Loquitor
Step3
Is it a medical
malpractice
case?
Yes
Did D's negligence deprive
the plaintiff of a
substantially better result?
Pcanrecover damagesattributed
toD'snegligence(Lv. L)
Lossof chance
(exceptiontoCIF)
Yes
No
No
Is it impossible to
know who is at
fault? (multiple
factor test)
Is it a
fungible
product?
Yes
Yes
Has there been a
passage of time?
No
No
Is it known that D1 was
negligent? (if D1 had exercised
due care, this wouldn't have
happened)
No
Yes
Whoever cannot proveduecare
jointly &severally liable
Market shareliability
(exceptiontoCIF)
NoCIF
Yes
No
No
Could D2 have
caused the harm
without D1?
Causeinfact but-for causation
Yes
Yes
Is it a contributive
negligence state?
Was there an
intervening event?
No
Yes
Plaintiff less than
50% negligent?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Pcannot
recover
Up to and including
50% rule?
No
Yes
Contributivenegligence
- Pcannot recover
No
Yes
Did the plaintiff
also have poor
conduct?
Joint and/ or
severablerecovery
Yes
Pure comparative
negligence?
Was P both a cause in fact
and a proximate cause?
Yes
P canonly recover %of liability
frommorenegligent person
Sufficient/ duplicative/
redundant causes
(exceptiontoCIF)
No
Was the harm recently
foreseeable given the
risk?
No
No
Yes
Proximate
cause
Pcanrecover full 100%frommore
negligent personand D1canget
contributionamount
Joint and
several lability
jurisdiction?
Necessary/ additive
causes(exceptiontoCIF)
Could D1
have
caused the
harm
without D2?
Whoever cannot proveduecare
issued by shareof market
Yes
Yes
Are there
multiple
defendants?
Alternative
liability (exception
toCIF)
No
Yes
P canrecover regardlessof
level of negligence
P canrecover but
reduced by fault
Pcanrecover ONLY if
exactly 50%negligent and
reduced by fault
Is there a special duty?
1)
Duty
-
Innkeeper/guest
Business/customer
Parent/child
Common carrier/passenger
Doctor/patient
Employer/employee
School/student
No
Would a
reasonable
person need
to use
attention
and
caution?
Yes
Yes
DUTY Step2
No
No
Duty
reduced by fault
No
Yes
Yes
Was the
intervening event
foreseeable?
Yes
Was the
outcome
foreseeable?
No
No
Was the
outcome
foreseeable?
No
Noproximate
cause
Yes
Was it a criminal
act that was
unforeseeable?
Noproximatecause,
generally
Yes
No
No
Was it a rescuer
who got hurt?
Was the rescuer
putting themself
at risk to save
the hurt party?
Yes
No
Did the plaintiff have
a medical condition?
(eggshell plaintiff)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Was there
subsequent medical
malpractice?
Proximatecause,
generally
Yes
Was it a
foreseeable act of
god? (ex. weather
reporter)
No
Was there a
reaction force?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Was there a
subsequent
accident?
No
Was it a
forseeable
criminal act?
No
Did the plaintiff
volunarily consent to
encounter a risk?
No
Yes
Did the
plaintiff sign a
waiver?
No
Did the plaintiff
choose to undertake
an inherently risky
activity?
Yes
Assumptionof
Risk - Implied,
Primary
No
Yes
Assumptionof
Risk - Express
Did the plaintiff
choose to
encounter a
risk negligently
created by D?
No
Was the D partaking
in an abnormally
dangerous activity?
Yes
Strict
Liability
Yes
Assumptionof
Risk - Implied,
Secondary