TORTS
FALL 2013
PROFESSOR AMANDA C. LEITER
LEITER@WCL.AMERICAN.EDU
OHS W3:15-5, ROOM 470
SYLLABUS
Overview: It’s hard to define the term “tort,” but in general, a tort case is a case in which a
victim (the plaintiff, or ) seeks money damages from a person or entity (the defendant, or )
who allegedly harmed the victim. It’s a catch-all category that includes almost all harms that are
not breach-of-contract. Torts can even be crimes—the government’s prosecution of the crime
is something you’ll learn about in your crim class, but the crime victim’s lawsuit against his/her
injurer is a classic tort suit.
We will learn about three types of torts:
(1) Intentional torts (for example:  purposely hit );
(2) Negligent torts (for example:  bicyclist irresponsibly rode rapidly down a crowded
sidewalk and hit plaintiff ); and
(3) Strict liability torts (for example:  engages in an abnormally dangerous activity, like
storing explosives, and something goes wrong, injuring ).
Then, at the end of the course, we will learn briefly about products liability (for example:  car
manufacturer builds a car with defective seatbelts, as a result of which  suffers injuries in a
crash). Products liability borrows from both negligence and strict liability, and learning about it
will give you an opportunity to review concepts from the rest of the course.
Casebook: Prosser, Wade & Schwartz, TORTS: CASES AND MATERIALS, 12th Ed. 2010
Class Times:

Class meets Tues. and Thurs., 10-11:50.

My office hours are Wed., 3:15-5

There will not be class on Thursday, September 26; I’ll schedule a makeup class on a
date/time TBD.

There will be a required but UNGRADED practice Midterm; date TBD.
Office Hours: Wednesdays 3:15-5 on a first-come-first-served basis. If those times don’t work
for you, please email to schedule an appointment (leiter@wcl.american.edu). I’m happy to
discuss torts, law school, environmental law, clerkships, jobs, etc. If you expect that you will
need more time than I can fairly allocate to you during office hours, please email to arrange a
different time to meet.
TORTS
Fall 2013
Professor Amanda C. Leiter
leiter@wcl.american.edu
OHs W 3:15-5, Room 470
Class Policies:
Attendance:

Class attendance is mandatory.

The roll sheet will be posted on the classroom door each day. If you do not sign the
sheet, I will consider you absent for that day.
Class participation:

Each day, I will randomly call on several students to participate in our discussion. Please
be prepared to discuss the facts and law of each case assigned for that day as well as
any cases we may carry over from the previous class discussion.

If you’re not prepared for some reason, email me ahead of class. No reason necessary.
If you take advantage of this, though, be prepared for me to call on you during a
subsequent class.

If you are unprepared more than a few times over the semester, I will notice, and it will
affect your final grade (see “Grading” below).

Even if I don’t call on you, I encourage you to volunteer in class, and/or ask questions as
necessary. If I consider your comment or question off-topic or otherwise unhelpful to
the group discussion, I may suggest that you come to my office hours to discuss it. You
should not be put off by that – we have a lot of material to cover, and I’ll have to keep
our discussion fairly streamlined, but I’m always happy to discuss interesting ideas
and/or answer questions outside of class time.
Laptops:

Some professors ban laptops in the classroom, but I would prefer not to do that. You
are adults, and as such, you must determine for yourselves how best to use your
computers in law school and in your subsequent careers as lawyers.

I expect you will find it helpful to take notes on your computer during class.

I do not expect you will find it helpful to transcribe everything I say, especially as that
will detract from your ability to pay attention to our discussion.

It is both unwise and RUDE to spend class time surfing the web, IMing with friends, etc.
If I see it happening too often, I may reconsider my laptop policy. Please, be courteous
to me and your fellow students and save your newspaper reading, shopping, and
virtual socializing for your free time.
-2-
TORTS
Fall 2013
Professor Amanda C. Leiter
leiter@wcl.american.edu
OHs W 3:15-5, Room 470
Powerpoints:

I frequently use powerpoints to display questions, answers, interesting tidbits from
discussion, etc. I will post these slides on the web once a week. There is no need to
reproduce the slides in your notes.

If you want access to old powerpoints that I haven’t yet posted, just email and remind
me to post them.
Grading:

Your final grade will depend on the final exam (graded, 90%) and your completion of the
ungraded midterm exam (10%).
o The final exam will be in class at the time assigned by the law school. It will be
open book, and you may handwrite or use your computer. It will be heavily but
not entirely multiple choice.
o The midterm exam is mandatory but ungraded. If you make a legitimate effort
to answer the questions, you will pass. I will not give individualized comments on
the exams but will provide you with a model answer against which you can
compare your answers.

In addition, I reserve the right to bump you up or down 1/3 of a grade (e.g. from a B+ to
an A- or vice versa) based on class participation/lack of participation.
Reading assignments: See attached course outline. (Note that I may adjust this reading with
advanced notice.)

One of the hardest things about law school is integrating all of the material. To assist
with this task, please pay attention to the outline below, and to the headings and
subheadings in the casebook. They will orient you and help ensure that at the end of
the semester, you’ve learned not only what the court said in (e.g.) U.S. v. Carroll Towing,
but also where Carroll Towing fits in the bigger picture of torts law.

For each assignment, read the primary cases and the notes.

Brief the primary cases for yourself, using whatever method suits you but making sure
to consider the following questions:
o What happened?
o What court are we in – trial court? court of appeals? Supreme Court? state or
federal?
o What is the “procedural posture” of this case: Did it reach a jury, or is it an
appeal from summary judgment? Who is appealing?
o What question(s) must the court answer?
-3-
TORTS
Fall 2013
Professor Amanda C. Leiter
leiter@wcl.american.edu
OHs W 3:15-5, Room 470
o What answer does the court give? Why?
o Is the “rule” of this case still valid, or has it been narrowed or expanded by the
cases in the notes? Is it applied in all jurisdictions? (These questions will often be
answered in the notes after the case.)
o Why is this case in your TORTS book? What torts concept does it elucidate?
o Do you agree with the outcome? Is the outcome fair? Why or why not? Does
the outcome make sense as a public policy matter? Why or why not?

Consider the questions posed in the notes, and to do your best to answer them by
applying the law you’ve learned to the identified factual scenarios.
o This is far more important than looking up the actual outcome(s) in the cited
case(s). Suppose, for example, the note says, “James aims at a target on a tree
but misses and hits Jill’s arm. Battery? Smith v. Jones, cite (2002).” You are
welcome to look up Smith v. Jones and figure out whether the court thought this
was a battery, but you will get a lot more out of the exercise if you first consider
the elements of battery and decide the issue for yourself.
-4-
TORTS
Fall 2013
Professor Amanda C. Leiter
leiter@wcl.american.edu
OHs W 3:15-5, Room 470
The following outline divides the course material into 26 “assignments.” You should read the
first assignment for the first day of class, and then read one assignment for each subsequent
day of class unless I tell you we are pausing for a “catch-up” day.
Unless I say otherwise, you should read and prepare one assignment per class meeting.
Assignment
COURSE OUTLINE
I.
II.
1
2
3
4
5
OVERVIEW
INTENTIONAL TORTS
A. Understanding Intent
1. Garratt v. Dailey
2. Spivey v. Battaglia
3. Ranson v. Kitner
4. McGuire v. Almy
5. Talmage v. Smith
B. Types of Torts
1. Battery
a) Wallace v. Rosen
b) Fisher v. Carrousel Motor
2. Assault
a) Western Union Tel v. Hill
3. False Imprisonment
a) Big Town Home v. Newman
b) Parvi v. City of Kingston
c) Hardy v. LaBelle’s
d) Enright v. Groves
e) Whittaker v. Sandford
4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)
a) State Rubbish v. Siliznoff
b) Slocum v. Food Fair
c) Harris v. Jones
d) Taylor v. Vallelunga
5. Trespass to Land
a) Dougherty v. Stepp
b) Herrin v. Sutherland
c) Rogers v. Board
6. Trespass to Chattels
a) Glidden v. Szybiak
b) CompuServe v. Cyber Promos.
7. Conversion
a) Pearson v. Dodd
C. Privileges
1. Consent
a) O’Brien v. Cunard S.S.
b) Hackbart v. Cinc Bengals
c) Mohr v. Williams
d) DeMay v. Roberts
-5-
Reading
SKIM pp. 1-16
READ pp. 17-24
pp. 24-37
pp. 37-55
pp. 55-81
pp. 81-104
TORTS
Fall 2013
Professor Amanda C. Leiter
leiter@wcl.american.edu
OHs W 3:15-5, Room 470
Assignment
COURSE OUTLINE
2.
3.
4.
5.
6
6.
7.
8.
9.
Self-Defense
Defense of Others
Defense of Property
a) Katko v. Briney
Recovery of Property
a) Hodgeden v. Hubbard
b) Bonkowski v. Arlan’s
Necessity (Public and Private)
a) Surocco v. Geary
b) Vincent v. Lake Erie
Authority of Law
Discipline
Justification
a) Sindle v. NYC Transit
Reading
pp. 104-132
WE MAY BE BEHIND AT THIS POINT AND NEED AN EXTRA DAY … STAY TUNED
7
8
9
III. NEGLIGENCE
A. Introduction to Negligence
1. Please pay particular attention to U.S. v. Carroll Towing
B. Standard of Care
1. Reasonable Man Standard
a) Vaughn v. Menlove
b) Delair v. McAdoo
c) Trimarco v. Klein
d) Cordas v. Peerless Trans
e) Roberts v. LA
f) Robinson v. Lindsay
g) Breunig v. Am. Family
2. Malpractice
a) Heath v. Swift Wings
b) Hodges v. Carter
c) Boyce v. Brown
d) Morrison v. MacNamara
e) Scott v. Bradford
f) Moore v. Regents
-6-
pp. 133-150
pp. 150-74
pp. 174-204
TORTS
Fall 2013
Professor Amanda C. Leiter
leiter@wcl.american.edu
OHs W 3:15-5, Room 470
Assignment
COURSE OUTLINE
10
C.
11
Aggravated Negligence
Rules of Law
Violation of Statutes (Negligence per se)
a) Osborne v. McMasters
b) Stachniewicz v. Mar-Cam
c) Ney v. Yellow Cab
d) Perry v. S.N and S.N.
e) Martin v. Herzog
f) Zeni v. Anderson
Proof of Negligence
1. Circumstantial Evidence
a) banana peel cases
2. Res Ipsa Loquitur
a) Byrne v. Boadle
b) McDougald v. Perry
c) Larson v. St. Francis Hotel
d) Ybarra v. Spangard
e) Sullivan v. Crabtree
Reading
3.
4.
5.
SKIM pp. 204-12
READ pp. 212-38
pp. 238-267
WE MAY BE BEHIND AT THIS POINT AND NEED AN EXTRA DAY … STAY TUNED
D.
12
13
E.
14
15
16
Causation (Factual Causation)
1. Sine Qua Non
a) Perkins v. TX & New Orl Ry
2. Proof of Causation
a) Reynolds v. TX & Pac Ry.
b) Gentry v. Douglas Hereford
c) Kramer Service v. Wilkins
d) Herskovits v. Group Health
3. Concurrent Causes
a) Hill v. Edmonds
b) Anderson v. Minn St. P. RR
4. Single Cause … But Who?
a) Summers v. Tice
b) Sindell v. Abbott Labs
Proximate Cause (Legal Causation)
1. Unforeseeable Consequences
a) Ryan v. NY Central RR
b) Bartolone v. Jeckovich
c) In re Arbitration
d) Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock (Wagon
Mound 1)
e) Overseas Tankship v. Miller Steamship (WM2)
f) Palsgraf v. Long Island RR
g) Yun v. Ford Motor
2. Intervening Causes
a) Derdiarian v. Felix Ctrcting
b) Watson v. KY and IN Bridge
c) Fuller v. Preis
d) McCoy v. American Suzuki
3. Public Policy
a) Kelly v. Gwinnell
b) Enright v. Eli Lilly
-7-
pp. 268-284
pp. 291-302
pp. 303-336
pp. 336-356
READ pp. 356-68
SKIM pp. 368-73
TORTS
Fall 2013
Professor Amanda C. Leiter
leiter@wcl.american.edu
OHs W 3:15-5, Room 470
Assignment
17
18
19
20
NOTE
CHANGE!
COURSE OUTLINE
IV. Defenses
A. Plaintiff’s Conduct – Contributory Negligence
1. Butterfield v. Forrester
2. Davies v. Mann
B. Plaintiff’s Conduct – Comparative Negligence
1. McIntyre v. Balentine
C. Plaintiff’s Conduct – Assumption of Risk
1. Seigneur v. Natl Fitness Inst
2. Rush v. Commercial Realty
3. Blackburn v. Dorta
D. Statutes of Limitation and Repose
1. Teeters v. Currey
E. Immunities
1. Freehe v. Freehe
2. Zellmer v. Zellmer
3. Abernathy v. Sisters
4. Clark v. Oregon Health Sciences Univ
5. Riss v. NY
6. DeLong v. Erie County
7. Deuser v. Vecera
V. STRICT LIABILITY
A. Animals
B. Abnormally Dangerous Activities
1. Rylands v. Fletcher
2. Miller v. Civil Constructors
3. Indiana Harbor v. Am Cyanamid
C. Limitations
1. Foster v. Preston Mill
2. Golden v. Amory
3. Sandy v. Bushey
Reading
pp. 609-639
pp. 639-669
pp. 669-687
pp. 713-744
21
VI. Damages
In-class exercise
22
VIII. Joint Tortfeasors
A. Joint Liability
1. Bierczynski v. Rogers
2. Coney v. J.L.G. Industries
3. Bartlett v. NM Welding
B. Satisfaction
1. Bundt v. Embro
2. Cox v. Pearl
3. Elbaor v. Smith
C. Contribution and Indemnity
1. Bundt v. Embro
2. Knell v. Feltman
3. Yellow Cab v. Dreslin
4. Slocum v. Donahue
pp. 374-405
-8-
TORTS
Fall 2013
Assignment
23
24
25
26
Professor Amanda C. Leiter
leiter@wcl.american.edu
OHs W 3:15-5, Room 470
COURSE OUTLINE
VII. Vicarious Liability
A. Respondeat Superior
1. Bussard v. Minimed
2. O’Shea v. Welch
B. Independent Contractors
1. Murrell v. Goertz
2. Maloney v. Rath
C. Joint Enterprise
1. Popejoy v. Steinle
D. Imputed Contributory Negligence
1. Smallich v. Westfall
IX. Products Liability
A. Historical Background
B. Product Defects
1. Manufacturing Defect
a) Rix v. GM
2. Design Defect
a) Prentis v. Yale Mfg.
b) O’Brien v. Muskin Corp.
3. Warnings Defect
a) Anderson v. Owens-Corning
C. Proof of Defect
1. Friedman v. GM
D. Defenses
1. Daly v. GM
2. Ford v. Matthews
REVIEW SESSION
-9-
Reading
pp. 688-706;
709-712
SKIM pp. 745-66
READ pp. 766-86
pp. 786-807
REVIEW