ABOUT THE BOOK—TOOLS TO SUCCEED

• The Capsule Summary provides a quick reference summary of the key concepts covered in the full Outline.
• The detailed course Outline with black letter principles supplements your casebook reading throughout the semester and gives structure to your own outline.
• The Quiz Yourself feature includes a series of short-answer questions and sample answers to help you test your knowledge of the chapter’s content.
• Exam Tips alert you to issues and commonly used fact patterns found on exams.
• The Casebook Correlation Chart correlates each section in the Outline with the pages covering that topic in the major casebooks.

In this new edition of Emanuel® Law Outlines: Torts, professors and students will benefit from new and expanded coverage. Covers virtually all principal cases in Prosser, Wade & Schwartz’s 15th Edition (2024), including over 20 cases that are new to the 15th Edition, such as:

• Burden of proof where Defendant’s sexual conduct is claimed to be battery and Defendant raises the defense of consent. Rondini v. Bunn (N.D. Ala 2020.)
• Defendant’s liability based on being a “substantial factor” in the harm suffered by Plaintiff, including the modern tendency to reject the substantial-factor standard. Doull v. Foster (Mass. 2021).
• The “value of a chance” doctrine, used to make Defendant liable in medical-malpractice cases where Defendant’s negligence deprived Plaintiff of a less-than-50% chance at a recovery. Smith v. Providence Health & Services (Ore. 2017).
• The declining use of a later “superseding cause” as a reason to relieve Defendant of liability, where Plaintiff’s injury would not have occurred but for the occurrence of that event. Barry v. Quality Steel Prods. (Conn. 2003).
• Courts’ disallowance of liability for pure economic losses caused by Defendant in toxic-tort cases involving pollution of land or water. Southern Cal. Gas Leak Cases (Cal. 2019).
• Government liability for ministerial errors versus sovereign immunity for discretionary decisions. Lorman v. City of Rutland (Vt. 2018).
• Failure-to-warn liability where Defendant is the maker of a brand-name pharmaceutical, but Plaintiff was injured by faulty labeling of the generic version of the same drug made by someone other than Defendant. T.H. v. Novartis Pharma. (Cal. 2017).

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents 
Preface 
Casebook Correlation Chart 
Capsule Summary

1. INTRODUCTION
2. INTENTIONAL TORTS AGAINST THE PERSON
3. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROPERTY
4. DEFENSES TO INTENTIONAL TORTS
5. NEGLIGENCE GENERALLY
6. ACTUAL AND PROXIMATE CAUSE
7. JOINT TORTFEASORS 
8. DUTY
9. OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS OF LAND
10. DAMAGES 
11. DEFENSES IN NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS
12. VICARIOUS LIABILITY
13. STRICT LIABILITY
14. PRODUCTS LIABILITY
15. NUISANCE
16. MISREPRESENTATION
17. DEFAMATION 
18. MISCELLANEOUS TORTS
Essay Exam Questions and Answers
Multistate-Style Exam Questions and Answers

Table of Cases
Table of Restatement Second References
Table of Restatement Third References
Subject Matter Index