Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Torts I Outline

Torts I Outline

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,815|Likes:
Published by Chris Diaz

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Chris Diaz on Feb 03, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





11/9/2009 4:48:00 PM
 PURPOSE (subjective desire)Personal desire on the part of the actor to produce a particular result Vosburg v. Putney (Boy kicks boy in classroom)If the intended act is unlawful, the intention to commit it must necessarily be unlawful. (School Rules-guided unlawful acts)KNOWLEDGE ("substantial certainty") Actor is substantially certain that a particular result will occur, even if the end is not desired.Garratt v. Dailey (Little boy pulls out chair)RULE: Restatement 29- "An act which, directly or indirectly, is the legal cause of a harmful contact withanother's person makes the actor liable to the other if (a) the act is done with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension thereof to the other or a third person«He knew with substantial certainty that she would attempt to sit down.Do not have to be hostile, have anger, or desire to cause harmWill benign motive get you "off the hook"? NOWill a mistake of fact negate intent? NOInsanity does not grant immunity from intentional tortsINTENT LIABILITY:Intent Injure (joke/prank)- still liable! Intent Mistake- still liableInsanity- still liable
:General Rule: Battery is the intentional, unconsented, harmful or offensive touching of another.Intentional act by the defendant For the purposes of battery, intent means with purpose (to produce a particular result) or knowledge(substantially certain the result will occur)For battery, the intent needed is the intent to cause contact that is harmful or offensive.Unconsented Consent meaning:
Consent is presumed to minor touchings warranted by social usages (a tap on the shoulder..)Noble v. Louisville Transfer Co. - There was no batter when the taxi driver steadied a little girl who was ill by placing his finger on her shoulder. Was not harmful or offensive.Harmful/OffensiveHarmful- unconsented alteration of a structure or function of the body, even if the change does not affect  plaintiff's health.Offensive- if it would offend a reasonable person's sense of personal dignity.Measured by the reasonable person standard.Lambertson v. United States (meat hook/piggyback joker)"it is battery for a man to play a joke upon another which involves a harmful or offensive contact." Brzoska v. Olson- Dentist with HIV. Only "offensive" if his dental treatment to patients results in actual exposure to HIV Contact withThe plaintiff/personGood Samaritan is subject to liability  A person who insists on setting a broken bone over plaintiff's objection is subject to liability Plaintiff NEED NOT be AWARE of the touching at the moment it occurs(a kiss during surgery if unconsented gives rise to liability)Personal effects/property of that person (ANY part of your body/extension of your body/ can include the car you are sitting in)Picard v. Barry Pontiac-Buick- Defendant held liable when he placed his finger on the plaintiff's camerawhile shouting "who gave you permission to take my picture." Courts have found liability for hitting a car in which plaintiff is riding.Not likely if in a bus or an airplane because not as closely identified with the plaintiff Something other than the defendant Garratt v. Dailey- child pulled chair out causing woman to fall; he knew with "substantially certainty" that harm would occur when he pulled the chair out from under her.Moore v. El Paso Chamber of Commerce- young man chased woman into a glass door while attempting tocatch her, liable for battery.She made contact with the glass door due to his intentional chasing.McGuire v. Almy (caretaker attacked by mental patient with chair leg)
Fault principle. (Fault v. greater good)- someone must bear the loss- should be the person who caused it,whether sane or not.Plaintiff did not believe physical injury was plain and obvious. Made a reasonable attempt to perform her duty of care to protect her patient. Did not indicate voluntary consent to be injured.
 General Rule: Assault is committed if the defendant intentionally creates in the plaintiff a well-grounded apprehension of present apparent ability and threatening gestures, of imminent, unconsented bodily contact.Intent to create apprehensionNot the same as fear No significant delay  A threat of future harm will not support action for assault Not assault to say "If you were 20lbs heavier I would knock you out!" Present apparent ability To cause contact No assault if plaintiff believes (even mistakenly) that the defendant lacks the ability to commit battery Western Union v. Hill- Defendant's employee says "if you come back here and let me love & pet you, I will fix your clock." Court held that the employee had the ability to reach over the counter and grab the woman.Threatening gestureWords not usually enoughImminent Not the same as immediateUnconsented Victim must be aware that all of this is going onNo assault if contact is unknown before battery is accomplished or effort is abandoned.

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Zac Sivertsen liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->