Negligence is a failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances.

The elements of negligence are: 1) Duty of care, 2) Breach of duty, 3) Actual cause, 4) Proximate cause, and 5) Damages.

The reasonable person standard is an objective test used to determine if a person's conduct constitutes negligence by comparing it to how a hypothetical reasonable person would have acted in similar circumstances.

Contributory negligence is when the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to their injury, which can bar them from recovering damages in some jurisdictions.

The eggshell skull plaintiff rule states that the defendant must take the plaintiff as they find them, even if the plaintiff is unusually susceptible to injury.

An intentional tort is a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act, such as battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trespass, or defamation.

The elements of battery are: 1) An act by the defendant, 2) Intent to cause harmful or offensive contact, and 3) Harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff.

Assault involves the threat of harm, while battery involves the actual harmful or offensive contact.

Strict liability is a legal doctrine that renders a person liable for injuries caused by their actions or products, regardless of fault or intent.

Activities commonly giving rise to strict liability include ultrahazardous activities, keeping wild animals, manufacturing defective products, and operating motor vehicles.

The elements are: 1) The product had an unreasonably dangerous defect when it left the manufacturer, 2) The defect caused an injury while the product was being used as intended, and 3) The defect existed when it left the manufacturer's control.

Common defenses include comparative negligence, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, and superseding cause.

Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine allowing an inference of negligence when the injury would not ordinarily occur absent negligence, the instrumentality was in the defendant's exclusive control, and there is no indication the plaintiff was responsible.

Common remedies in tort cases include compensatory damages (economic and non-economic), punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

The economic loss rule bars recovery in tort for purely economic losses in the absence of personal injury or property damage.

The attractive nuisance doctrine imposes liability on landowners for injuries to trespassing children caused by artificial conditions on the land that are likely to attract children.

Joint and several liability allows a plaintiff to recover the full amount of damages from any one of multiple tortfeasors, who are then responsible for seeking contribution from the others.

The last clear chance doctrine allows a plaintiff to recover despite their own negligence if the defendant had a last clear chance to avoid the injury but failed to do so.

The rescue doctrine allows a rescuer to recover for injuries sustained while reasonably attempting to rescue someone in peril, even if the rescuee was negligent.

The 'thin skull' rule states that a negligent defendant must take the victim as they find them, even if the victim is unusually susceptible to injury.

Nominal damages are awarded when a legal injury has occurred but no actual damages are proved, while punitive damages punish willful or malicious conduct.

Negligent torts involve unintentional conduct that falls below the standard of care, while intentional torts involve intentional acts that violate a person's rights.

Causation, including both actual cause and proximate cause, is a key element in negligence cases that must be proven for the plaintiff to recover damages.

Negligence per se is when a defendant's violation of a statute or regulation constitutes negligence, if the statute is intended to protect against the type of harm suffered by the plaintiff.

Common affirmative defenses to intentional torts include self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, consent, and necessity.

The locality rule holds that the standard of care in medical malpractice cases is determined by the standards in the same or similar localities, rather than a national standard.

The borrowed servant doctrine holds that an employee may be considered the borrowed servant of another employer for purposes of respondeat superior liability if certain criteria are met.

The federal preemption doctrine prevents state product liability claims that conflict with federal regulations governing the product at issue.

Common defenses include lack of defect, alteration after sale, misuse, assumption of risk, and the obvious danger rule.

The recklessness standard often applies to sports injuries, where participants assume risks inherent to the sport but not risks of reckless conduct.

The 'coming and going' rule generally precludes respondeat superior liability for employee torts committed while commuting to and from work.

The public duty doctrine generally bars tort claims against public employees and entities for failure to provide adequate governmental services.

Compensatory damages aim to make the plaintiff whole, while punitive damages punish and deter egregious misconduct.

Common intentional business torts include trade libel, tortious interference with contract or prospective economic advantage, misappropriation of trade secrets, and unfair competition.

Foreseeability is often a key factor in determining both the existence of a duty and the limits of proximate cause in negligence cases.

The regulatory compliance defense argues that the defendant should not be liable if their product complied with all applicable regulations at the time of manufacture.

The professional negligence standard holds professionals to the care and skill expected of others in the same profession in the same or similar locality.

The intentional tort of defamation often arises from defamatory statements damaging to one's reputation.

Limitations include the economic loss rule, the obvious danger rule, disclaimers and warnings, misuse, and alteration of the product.

The tort of loss of consortium addresses wrongful injuries depriving family members of the love, affection, and companionship of an injured spouse or parent.