Torts Class Notes August 21, 2013 Spano v.

. Perini Corp strict liability whenever a company blasts theres an understood risk of danger ultrahazardous don!t have control over the e"plosion no physical invasion discussed in this course # public policies that were competing in this case$ the right to e"pand vs right to protect ones home%property they aren&t in conflict with one another saying if a blast occurs that they will be liable%not saying that ' can!t do the activity (saying responsible if damage occurs the landowner doesn!t really need protection some torts dont have a remedy rights of ' who are blasters if court held position that prior court held then the rights of the ' would be paramount over any one others court not willing to say that transaction costs --those are e"ternal costs which they must take into consideration )ull$ strict liability % take into consideration no other facts% circumstances right to bodily integrity *eaver$ strict liability with possibility of defense accidentally +rown fault or intent Cohen ,volitional act-$ if one. then liable% if not then no liability Spano$ strict liability with other possibility ,hull and spano are connected / no possibility of defensestrict liability: it is liability without fault or intent said to be a better theory of law if you say negligence$ acted badly strict liability$ not necessarily acted badly what is the rule of innocent parties and why is it important why is a voluntary act necessary 0 indispensable element of finding liability liability$ have to have a voluntary act what is the importance of Spano Physical invasion not important 1arrat v. 'ailey 2case that will be the governing principle from this point forward 3rial court$ ' had to have specific intent to harm this is incorrect was it necessarily for him to know physical hurt or physically touch4 Physically touch # types of intent$ specific intent / purpose or desire to bring about a given act ' could not have intended for breaking hip but had intention to impermissible touch her which was all that was necessary general intent / setting a chain of events knowing with substantial certainty that the outcome is likely to occur )5P$ crowded room. turn off lights. swing a bat don&t intend to hit someone specifically but you are setting a chain of events

from that behavior substantially likely to occur that you hit someone +attery$ indirectly% agent was the ground / under the agency theory / if one uses an implement rather than acting directly / used ground to make contact with her / the ground is what in6ured her ,broke her hip court says that a relations of a grave risk of contact not enough need substantial certainty ' knew with substantial certainty that she was going to sit in the chair not be able to stop herself from sitting hit the ground court sends case back for reconsideration of intent then find ' liable first restatement$ for a tort to be committed must need specific intent second restatement$ for a tort to be committed must need general intent specific intent 7-----general intent------8negligence ,didn!t act in ordinary care have intentional court identified for a tort if the defendant only intended to make this woman fall ,specific intent doesn&t intend to break her hip but act to a substantial certainty that she will fall ,general intent )5P$ ,p9:- hospital has tainted blood /creates a scenario where someone may come into contact with );< / would that be enough for intent4 =ot enough for specific intent =ot enough for general intent ,not substantially certain )5P$ kid of this age that causes harm to someone > yr old could be liable for general intent(age is relevant only so far as it demonstrates likely degree of knowledge based upon his e"perience and understanding Spivey v. +attaglia assault 0 battery / # year statue had run. there would be no cause of action trail court$ summary 6udgment proper so does appeal !SS"#$ can one maintain action for negligence if ?0+ had run4 McDonald$ had intent--8 substantially certain that some harm could come if dont have hostile intent or specific intent / fall back on general / or negligence distinction between the two cases$ unreasonable to conclude substantial certainty that something bad would follow if we say ' doesnt have to know about bizarre outcome and all he wanted to do was touch her impermissibly(isnt that intent 4 *hy did go to negligence4 State supreme court got this wrong(based on knowledge of intent because they are concerned about serious damage to woman if dont have intentional tort or negligence claim and sufferes from in6ury(wont get a remedy takes out predictability did substantial certainity that touching would be an unwanted touch. did he have intention to touch(both yes knew that she was shy(motive was to tease her its intent and therfore supreme court was wrong 22only way you can tell intent is looking at what the actors did )5P$ at a christmas party. employees(horseplay--electric shocks $ liable because intent to make contact % fact that you make the contact is all that is necssary

@anson v Aitner 6ust because mistake still liable motive is not relevant % fact that you acted in good faith is not relevant @BCD$ good faith and mistake do not negate intent considered trespass to chattel if accident$ negligence )5P$ mistakingly put hands aggressively on somewhere else specific intent good faith and mistake dont negate intent )5P$ clothing store fighting for another /eats an eggs. mistakes for gun. tackles natural right to self defense law says you can make a mistake as to the right to use self defense Ec1uire v ?lmy nurse % crazy person legal rule$ still liable(mentall illness doesn!t negate intent(doesnt matter if it doesnt understand% look at general intent through her e"ternal behavior makes a distinction between intentinal torts and negligence4 no if you look at a person who was mentally ill---to be held liable if you know theres going to be aliablity you need to watch out for that person and watch out for that persons property if shes financailly able to she needs to pay for damages mentally ill abundance of wealth do you harm somone(youre liable to pay the damages stay away from entering into law of difficulty determing mental capacity law doesn!t care--8 liable even if you!re mentally ill this law is consistent with how we treat children do we care about fault no. its the reFuist intentent thats the pre-reFuisite if a person who is inanse does an act to a damage of personal property(person liable 6ust like any reasonable person would be do you have to specifically know that you!re doing something4 no. 6ust capable of entertaining the same type of intent(dont have to have specific intent. have general itent did P assume risk4 no. because for G> months she never in6ured anyone. Hob is to protect woman from herself annonced and then did it / cohenn v petty has to be a voluntary act to be liable---this was a voluntary act voluntary into"ication doesnt negate intent 3almage v. Smith transferred intent(if you have intent. that intent is sufficient to lead to liablity false imprisonment trespass to land trespass to chattels battery assault court gives 9 instruction$

 Gst instruction is wrong--