.png)
A Torts outline is a stack of element tables with one oversized page in the middle: the negligence master checklist, which will govern half your exam and deserves half your outlining care. Torts punishes intuition and pays for elements, so the document's whole design goal is to make element by element analysis automatic, every tort as a table, every element with its test, every defense attached to the torts it actually reaches. The general method is in how to outline; this is the Torts build.
One page, nested, in analysis order. Duty: the general reasonable person standard, then the special relationship and affirmative duty triggers, then the limited duty pockets your course covered. Breach: the reasonable person variations, children, professionals, then the Hand formula as burden against probability times gravity, then the two alternate routes, negligence per se with its class of persons and class of harms test, and res ipsa with its elements.
Actual cause: but for, plus the substantial factor and alternative liability escapes for the multiple defendant patterns. Proximate cause: foreseeability of the harm's type, the Palsgraf scope of duty framing beside the Andrews view as a standing both sides flag, and the intervening versus superseding cause test. Damages: required, actual harm, with the eggshell extent rule attached.
Defenses: pure versus modified comparative fault, both stated because exams leave the jurisdiction open, and assumption of risk, express and implied. Every sub test one line, every line usable against facts. This page compresses to the attack outline's spine almost unchanged.
Torts exams are multi plaintiff, multi defendant chain reactions, and the pre writing inventory, who can sue whom for what, is the discipline that catches the claims rule dumps miss. Build the prompt into the outline itself: a short box at the top of the attack version, list every P and D pairing, run the checklist per pairing, sweep the multipliers last. Institutionalizing the habit in the document is how it survives exam adrenaline, per the read protocol in the Torts exam guide.
The attack outline keeps the negligence checklist nearly whole, it is the course, the intentional torts as element keywords, one line per tort, the strict liability and products triggers, and the multiplier sweep box. What drops: the case handles except the few your professor demonstrably rewards, and the damages detail beyond the category names and the eggshell line.
Writing causation as one merged line, when actual and proximate cause are separate inquiries with separate tests and the exam's points live in keeping them apart. Orphaning the defenses in their own distant section instead of attaching them to the torts they answer. Omitting damages from the negligence checklist, which is how near miss fact patterns trick outlines into finding liability without harm.
Recording the eggshell rule loosely, it expands the extent of a foreseeable type of harm, never the type. And letting the intentional torts sprawl into prose, when seven tight tables with intent defined per tort, battery's intent is intent to contact, is the entire section. The element table shell is in the template library, and the hub's course map is at Torts: the complete guide.
Thirty to forty pages at the master stage, with the negligence page carrying disproportionate polish. If negligence occupies less than a quarter of your outline's care, the allocation is off.
Where your professor teaches from them, yes, section numbers beside the rules exactly as Civ Pro outlines carry rule numbers. Their formulation is the exam's correct one.
One short block, loss allocation, deterrence, administrability, attached to the doctrines your professor debated in class, ready for the policy question. Free floating theory stays in the notes.
Written by Ali, Georgetown Law, founder of Lovare Institut.
July 30, 2026
July 30, 2026