Torts and Government Liability in Guam
The Torts section tests negligence, intentional torts, strict liability, defamation, privacy, and government liability under Guam law, including the Guam Tort Claims Act. Guam follows common-law tort doctrine with local statutes modifying comparative fault, sovereign immunity, and certain damages.
Negligence
- Duty, breach, actual and proximate causation, and damages. The standard is the reasonable person; professionals must use ordinary skill; landowners owe duties based on entrant status.
- Guam follows comparative negligence; check the Guam statute for whether it is pure or modified and how joint and several liability is treated.
- Res ipsa loquitur and negligence per se.
Intentional torts and strict liability
- Battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass, and conversion; defenses include consent, privilege, and self-defense.
- Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities and product defects; Guam's product-liability statute may modify common-law rules.
Defamation and privacy
- Defamatory statement, publication, and damages. Public officials and figures must prove actual malice; private plaintiffs in matters of public concern face constitutional limits.
- Invasion of privacy torts: intrusion, public disclosure, false light, and appropriation.
Government liability
- The Guam Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity only for specified claims and requires notice and timely filing.
- Exceptions include discretionary functions, intentional torts, and certain injuries; employees may be sued individually only in limited circumstances.
Worked example
A customer slips on a wet floor in a Guam store. The store mopped 10 minutes earlier but placed no sign. The customer was texting and did not look down. The store's duty as possessor includes reasonable inspection and warning; the hazard was foreseeable, and the absence of a sign supports breach. Under comparative negligence, the customer's recovery is reduced by her percentage of fault. If Guam's statute is a modified 50% bar, she recovers nothing if her fault is 50% or more. Damages include medical expenses and pain and suffering, but future lost wages require proof.
Traps
- Assuming pure comparative fault; check Guam's statute.
- Missing the notice-of-claim deadline under the Guam Tort Claims Act.
- Confusing defamation per se with constitutional actual malice.
- Ignoring comparative fault in intentional-tort cases.
A strong answer states each element, applies the Guam statute, and quantifies the effect of comparative fault.