Also known as:actual knowledge · constructive knowledge · imputed knowledge · legal notice
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of awareness under which a person is charged with information either personally possessed or that a reasonable inquiry would have revealed.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Judge's Conflict Discovered Post Judgment
Judge Harlan served as a university trustee while presiding over a contract dispute between the university and Atlas Ventures. Harlan did not personally review the trustee roster before trial. After judgment, Atlas discovered the overlap and moved to vacate. The court applied an objective test and vacated the judgment because a reasonable inquiry would have disclosed the conflict.
Ticket Notice Imputed to Passenger
Anika Anand sailed on a cruise booked by her coworker. The coworker received the ticket containing a liability limitation but never showed it to Anika. When Anika later sued for injury, the court charged her with the ticket terms because the coworker's possession supplied constructive knowledge.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Statutes
Uniform Acts
Model Codes
Restatements
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Smith v. Doe991 F. Supp. 781, 783 (E.D. La. 1998)
Manufacturer's Awareness of Risk
Avalon Pharmaceuticals distributed a drug later linked to heart damage. Internal memos showed scientists had flagged the risk months earlier. When patients sued, the company could not claim ignorance because the scientists' reports gave it actual or constructive knowledge of the danger.
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.893 F.2d 541 (3d Cir.1990), affirmed in part and reversed in part, 505 U.S. 504 (1992)
Review Standard for Published Statements
A consumer magazine published a critical article about Apollo Energy's product testing. Apollo claimed the statements were knowingly false. The court required Apollo to show the magazine possessed actual or constructive knowledge of falsity at publication because the First Amendment demands that level of proof.
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.466 U.S. 485, 514 n.31 (1984)
Therapist's Duty to Warn
A patient told his therapist of specific threats against Anita Ali. The therapist took no steps to alert Ali or authorities. After the patient attacked Ali, the court held the therapist liable because the disclosed threats supplied actual or constructive knowledge of foreseeable harm.
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California551 P.2d 334, 342 (Cal. 1976)
Prosecutor's Immunity Despite Later Facts
Prosecutor Aaron Adams presented testimony later shown to be perjured. Adams had not personally verified the witness's background. When the defendant sued for misconduct, the court granted immunity because Adams lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the perjury at the time of trial.
Imbler v. Pachtman424 U.S. 409 (1976)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
How does actual or constructive knowledge differ from actual knowledge alone?+
Actual knowledge requires personal awareness of a fact. Constructive knowledge imputes awareness when a reasonable person in the same position would have discovered the fact through ordinary diligence. Courts combine the two under the single phrase to impose an objective standard.
Supporting sources
In premises liability cases, what must a plaintiff prove about the defendant's knowledge of a hazard?+
The plaintiff must show the defendant either knew of the dangerous condition or should have known of it through reasonable inspection. Proof that the defendant lacked both actual and constructive knowledge defeats the claim even if the condition was hazardous.
Supporting sources
Does a judge's lack of personal awareness of a conflict excuse failure to recuse?+
No. The statute applies an objective test. A judge is charged with constructive knowledge of facts that a reasonable inquiry would have revealed, so post-judgment discovery of a disqualifying interest can still require vacatur when the violation is not harmless.
Supporting sources
517 U.S. 559, 575, 580-81 (1996)Remedies
…after respondent purchased his car). Florida requires dealers to disclose paint repair costing more than $100 of which they have actual knowledge. Fla. Stat. § 320.27(9)(n) (1992). Oregon requires manufacturers to disclose all "postmanufacturing" damage and repairs. It is unclear whether this mandate would apply to repairs such as…