You are on page 1of 11

I.

Intentional Torts a. Definition Intent – 1. D does act volitionally and deliberately desiring or wanting to bring consequences (the invading of a Plaintiff’s protected interest) 2. D does an act knowing to a substantial certainty that a particular result will occur (invading the P’s protected interest) 3. An intent may be shown through actions and/or words a. Insanity and infancy are not a defense if one can show intent (have to show that they couldn’t form the intent) in a civil action, however, in a criminal action they do not have to prove intent 4. Transferred Intent—Intent that had been shifted from the originally intended wrongful act to the wrongful act actually committed, and the result must be immediate and direct. a. Applies to: i. Assault ii. Battery iii. Trespass to land iv. Trespass to chattel v. False Imprisonment vi. DOES NOT APPLY TO IISED and conversion b. Battery— 1.

A battery is the intentional causing of a harmful or offensive contact with the body of another person, or contact with something that is so closely associated with that person that it becomes an extension of that person.
a. b. c. Harmful or offensive touching is determined by reasonable objective person standard. D does not have to be aware of the harm at the time When a Defendant commits a battery, and the resulting injuries is more extensive than a reasonable person might have anticipated, the D will still be liable for those injuries.

c.

Assault— 1. intentional act by D that puts P in reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery a. Do not need actual harm, only reasonable apprehension of imminent harm b. Fear is not required c. Imminent battery—P is aware of D’s action at that moment and battery could occur at that moment. d. Words in themselves, no matter how threatening, does not constitute an assault if not accompanied by an threatening action

for such bodily harm. One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress. e. b. Trespass to Chattels: 1. d. If the person is passed out drunk and is placed in a room that is locked.d. Electronic touching is still touching (CompuServe v. Harm can be to reputation and goodwill of a company. a. Trespass to Land: 1. Cyber Promotions) 2. Private necessity 1. g. and if bodily harm to the other results from it. Chattel: movable or transferable personal property b. Bodily harm is caused to the possessor or harm is caused to some person or thing in which the possessor has a legally protected interest. Can trespass to save his life. absent local legislation to collect. b. but if damages are made. Is the intentional entry onto the land of another. . c. damages are presumed a. Intangible property includes: literary. Intentional Infliction of Severe Emotional Distress 1. and the person must be aware of the confinement. Intentional interference/meddling with another’s lawful possession of a chattel causing harm a. trade secrets c. Intent Extreme and outrageous behavior (would offend a reasonable person) Causation between the conduct and the distress f. The possessor is deprived of the use of the chattel for a substantial time c. If he is injured during his confinement. False Imprisonment 1. Chattel is impaired as to its condition. the D is liable for all damages Public necessity Firefighters destroying your house to save the block. scientific invention. False Imprisonment is the intentional restraining and confining with boundaries of another person by force or threat of force. he is not aware of his confinement and therefore is not falsely imprisoned. a. Defenses: i. Committed when a. quality or value b. Must show actual damages or substantial deprivation d. they are not obligated to pay. without consent. awareness is not necessary for false imprisonment.

(Mohr v.h. f. D also exercised control over the car (item) when he crashed the car (item) c. a. Can be a defense to any tort 1. When D acts in such a way. Misdelivering it vii. Self defense – the privilege to defend yourself against someone who you honestly believe is about to inflict serious bodily harm against you. Good faith actions to not create consent. . “The pathway to tort hell is paved with good intentions” i. Williams) dr. a. When D takes an item that doesn’t belong to him. b. purchase item from a thief v. Defenses—Legally recognized excused for conduct that would have otherwise been a tortious act. objective standard used. Consent is canceled when given as a result of fraud or deceit (De May v. 3. Withdraw of consent means that physician must conduct new informed consent discussion. A good faith purchaser who buys stolen property without knowing it is stolen. Differs from trespass to chattel by the degree of interference.e. Receiving it i.e. Roberts) d. Consent violated by Fraud ii. a. You may use equal but not greater force to stop the event from occurring to you. he is liable to pay for the chattel for its full value. iv. Express – subjective 2. Refusing to surrender it e. because he cannot continue to rely on previously given consent 4. Conversion 1. Using it iv. performed non-life threatening surgery on P without P’s consent. Consent i. Damaging or altering iii. Medical—only if immediately life threatening and patient is unable to give consent. stealing ii. he intends to do so because he desired the result of his action. Disposing of it vi. iii. Conversion is the intentional exercise of dominion or control over an item that so interferes with the rights of another to control it that it requires payment of the full value of the chattel. b. Implied—facts looked at from perspective of D. Acquiring possession i. may be protected _________________________________________________________________ II. Ways to convert chattel i. Good faith does not remove liability for conversion. When playing a naturally dangerous game a player only consents to the normal and physical contacts of the game.

Public necessity to destroy property. Demand not required when it would be useless 5. Reasonable force allowed. D is not a tortfeasor but has to pay for P’s damages e. and the force used must be withdrawn when the treat is over. Majority: never 4. Reasonable detention (can use reasonable force on or near the premises) Necessity i. Excessive force cannot be used. These two privileges allow the actor the right to use a necessary amount of force. You will be responsible as the person you are defending. f. Shopkeepers’ privilege 1. Deadly force a. Briney) 3. Must clearly prove necessity in every case 3. D chooses his property over P’s c. d. Factors 1. Must be in fresh pursuit 3. Public official does not have to be the one to make the decision 2.destroyed P’s house to stop a fire spreading through town. Reasonable force: value of life and property is greater than the right to exclude (Katko v. Reasonable belief P took something ii. Defense of others – stand in the shoes of another. A merchant that reasonably believes a customer has stolen merchandise may reasonably detain that person to recover the property. Damage to another’s property to save more valuable personal property a. Limited to unlawful intrusion Recovery of Property (Chattels) i. Don’t have to pay damages ii. No reasonable mistake iii. Private Necessity 1.c. Allows for reasonable mistake and reasonable force b. Limited and Qualified b. Elements i. without escalation. Similar principles as those of self-defense 2. Surocco v. a. Wrongful possession by P 2. 4. Prompt discovery by D 4. Reentry upon real property 1. Intruder privilege to remain if necessary to save their life 5. Demand by D for return of property (not always necessary) a. some mistake is allowed but not too much. (greatest good for the greatest number) 1. Minority allows states to re-take land by force. g. i. ii. Geary. Defense of Property 1. .

Negligence: a. B= efforts/costs/otherwise by D to have avoided harm.D must be the actual cause and D must be the proximate cause iv. Motive of the teacher I. Teachers 1. they can create a duty. Breach.D has failed to use reasonable skill and care iii. L= gravity of resulting harm/injury iii. Social host – bar owners and commercial establishments have a duty to protect third parties. b. There is a duty to act reasonably under the circumstances. Privilege extends to people who are temporarily responsible for the children ii. and failure to do so is a breach of that duty. Conduct of the student c. Discipline i. Age and physical condition of the student d. iv.P has suffered actual harm c. 1. 1. Damages. Nature of the offense e. P= probability of event occurring ii.h. Nature of punishment b. Motive f. Learned Hand Negligence formula: PL > B = negligence i. Causation. Duty. Condition of child d. Predicated on the need to retain reasonable order within the classroom 2. and there must be injury. Factors to decide appropriateness a. The breach of that duty amounts to negligence. Gender b. Factors to consider a. Influence of the child’s conduct as an example to other children g.D has a legal obligation to P not to negligently injure P ii. Discipline may be appropriate even if the parents object to the types of discipline 3. Creating a duty where it didn’t exist – when someone does not have a duty but acts as if they do. Duty . Age c. If they don’t serve – then they are not in breach of that duty v. is the failure to use reasonable care under the circumstances. Reasonable necessity of confinement or force 2. Then there must be causation which consists of cause in fact and proximate cause. and are in breach of that duty if they negligently serve alcohol to someone who is visibly intoxicated. Must prove: (meet all requirements) i. Parents are allowed to exercise reasonable force or restraint upon their children without being liable for damages. Instructor will be held liable for the use of excessive force 4. vi.

The harm that occurred is the kind that typically does not occur without negligence b. Cause in fact: . ix. If the harm caused due to the negligence. Child performing adult activity = adult standard i. Elements of Causation 1. they don’t have to show certainty. experience. 1. And that the P was not negligent. knowledge and intelligence a. Part of the duty is to be sure that cameras (lighting on steps at theatre) are working properly to be able to look back and see what happened. Child driving a car. Cause in fact – “But for test” 2. Proximate – we deal with Foreseeability of the harm. The jury will be left to decide if the professional place is liable or not. motorcycle. xi. Rule of 7 (negligence in a child) i. a. The plaintiff only needs to show that it was more probably than not. RIL (the thing speaks for itself) 1. Direct Evidence b. and had a duty to watch the child) c.vii. 3. viii.the negligence of X would certainly cause them to be liable Professional Duty (Day Care or any other professional place) 1. a. and X owed a duty to all foreseeable plaintiffs in the zone of danger. Cardozo Palsgraff analysis – X was a foreseeable plaintiff. boat. Negligence per se Causation 1. The day care has a duty as a daycare center to act reasonably when taking care of children. the breach of a duty is a breach. When the cameras don’t work. 3. Andrew’s view in Palsgraff of direct cause . the plaintiff must show: a. Res Ipsa Loquitur d. then there is proximate cause. then there is a breach because there is no direct or circumstantial evidence. etc b. P must show that the D was in exclusive control of the instrumentality (The daycare was in exclusive control of the child and whatever caused the injury at the time. The apply RIL. and Y falls into this category 4. you apply Res Ipsa Loquitur (RIL). 7-14. Mental capacity is of a normal person. 14-21 Breach 1. In that case. skill. Circumstantial Evidence c. Breach is simple. 1-7. A blind or deaf person has its own reasonable person scale c. x. 2.

the P may sue all of them and switch the burden to the defendants. There must be cause in fact. It is foreseeable that a child not properly watched over at a daycare center will be injury in anyway. It would also seem reasonable that the statute could be in effect to protect as a matter of public policy.II. including his eye. III. There was a duty owed to all the foreseeable plaintiffs. the daycare would be held liable. When the party is injured as a result of the negligence of one of many parties but it is undeterminable which one actually committed the act which caused the injury. breaking of the law) by way of statute violation. there also must be a cause between the violation and the injury incurred. Yabarra case. 3. Andrew’s Palsgraff Analysis: a. The daycare owed a duty to the child. . 2. The injured party must be within the class the statute is intended to protect 2. showed that the doctors wouldn’t admit to which one of them actually caused the injury or in reality truthfully did not know. (But for the daycares apparently negligent actions. The shift is reasonable considering the policy considerations at hand 1. which are all the children (patrons at a business) in the danger zone. a. i. The injury must be the type that the statues was meant to prevent 3. 1. Legal Cause (Proximate Cause) a. And. which can be shown by the “but for” test. 2. Cardozo Palsgraff Analysis: a. Negligence per se is when a violation of a statues creates negligence. Holds the negligent party liable for all direct causes resulting from the negligent act. Negligence by the entire hospital staff (Alternative Liability/Causation) a. There is an injured party and but for negligence of one of the parties the injury would not have occurred ii. ii. The statute is most likely intended to protect the general public from someone or something that is not supposed to occur. i. and they breached that duty when they were negligent and the child was injured 4. but it forced the burden of proof to shift from the plaintiff to the defendants in order to point the finger at that actually negligent doctor. The injury sustained while the D is in the scope of injury that the statute was intended to prevent and the causation would apply because of the negligent driving (smoking. Negligence Per Se a. the child would not have harmed his eye). In order to be applied: 1. i.

then he could not inform anyone of other possibilities regarding the line of treatment. Lack of informed consent by Doctor a. The treatment is urgently needed iv. Making a phone call to the parents if the parents are not present c. the doctor will not be found negligent in treating the patient. VI. Lack of consent by Doctor a. Talking on the phone while driving on a rainy night: i. In that case. i. Patient based theory: 1. Majority view. It is much more fair to hold the entire hospital staff that conducted the surgery or was present to be able to determine the actual offender because it would leave the P the ability to collect payment for the damage caused. The ways consent may be obtained: a. ii. Consent can be obtained by language. Implied consent acquisition: a. The doctor has a duty to follow whatever theory is applied in their state. When a doctor must tell the patient everything a reasonable patient would want to know. it is a battery. iii. together with the circumstances of the situation. 2. 3. There are 4 elements required to obtain implied consent i. iii.IV. Treatment is needed to prevent serious injury 1. ii. physician or patient based. Minors cannot give consent. Consent is a defense to intentional torts. especially little children. that a reasonable physicial would want to tell a patient. V. Contributory Negligence a. The person talking on the phone was negligent in her own part and therefore contributory negligent. By the parents of a minor b. ii. If the doctor obtained implied consent. And non consent is not known. etc. If there is no consent by the doctor. 1. and must be obtained by a doctor before examining a patient. behavior. side effects. Facts must state that the injury was serious! iii. 1. . The patient is unable to consent ii. Physician based theory: 1. Not getting informed consent amounts to negligence. One can argue that the icy roads were an intervening factor that would relieve liability with respect to the Trucker. the doctor has a duty to inform the patient of all alternatives. they should not be talking on the phone because something bad is bound to happen. i. Any reasonable person has to know that when it’s raining very hard. Doctor MAY NOT obtain implied consent if the treatment were not urgently needed. conduct.

The doctor will be held to the standard of a reasonable (same specialistOptomologist). Firefighters Rule a. There was no duty to the injured person because the occurrence of the injury is so far down the line that it was not foreseeable. even though the “but for” test would state otherwise. i. 3. he failed to diagnose and treat the disease and did not notify the parents of the child (or person) of the fact. The lost chance doctrine will apply here. It cannot be said that her talking on the phone on a rainy night was a superseding factor that would cut off liability to the truck driver. ii. then the doctor will not be held liable. In both situations. Whether the storm was a freak storm or a normal setting for the winter time would help in determining this. IX. ii. the person is diagnosed and now suffers blurry vision d. iii. Cardozo Palsgraff Analysis would say: 1. Acts of God are said to provide situations in which one could not reasonably foresee. Since the doctor was looking closely at the child’s eye. It cannot be conclusively said that “but for” her action that she would not have struck the crate any way because of the icy roads and the rain. . BUT i. which is harm caused by negligence. A year or so later. A professional rescue person was performing his duty when he sustained his injuries. If the doctor can prove that he acted reasonably under the circumstances according to the prevailing standard of care for the same type of specialist. and the prevailing standard of care in that area and the board which certified him. e. he should have been able to find the eye disease at the early stages but failed to do so. there is no instance that would but off the liability of the trucker. c. VIII. Rescue Doctrine a. Lost Chance Doctrine a. Act of God a. Andrew’s Palsgraff Analysis would say: 1. It could be foreseeable that when someone pulls over to “save” someone that they may be injured because of the present conditions. As a result. VII. This is within his job description which makes it unlikely that the negligent person would be liable for the damages caused to the professional rescuer.2. b. but were negligent in diagnosing and reduced the patients chances of recovery. The liability would apply because the chain of events was continuous up until the injury of the third party that stopped to help. Expert testimony would be needed here to strengthen the case for the child and prove even further that a reasonable specialist would have been able to find the disease in the early stages when the doctor initially checked the child. A cause of action exists against a doctor where they are not the cause of the injury or disease. i. because the child’s chances of recovery were greatly reduced. X.

The doctor owed a duty to the child. The doctor is the proximate cause of the damage caused by the disease and will likely be held liable for malpractice and pay damages for the child’s loss of sight. the D will be strictly liable. he may be liable to trespassersts under intential tort theory Abnormally dangerous activity Where a defendant engages in an abnormally dangerous activity and the plaintiff is injured as a actual and promisate result of that activity. a. since the child was a foreseeable plaintiff in the zone of danger of the doctors negligent act. then the owner is strictly liable . Elements: Activity must create a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm Risk must be significant The risk can not be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care The activity must not be common in the relevant community. then strict liability would apply property damages may be included domestic animals no strict liability EXCEPT if the owner knows of a particular dangerous propensity. b. injury to the plaintiff. “But for” the negligent diagnosis. Undiscovered trespassers must prove negligenxe EXCEPT: if owner deliberately keeps a vicious animal. Victims injuries do not depend on the actions of others besides of the defendant. Trespassing animals3 categories of animals to determine whether to hold an owner strictly liablefarm animals the owner is strictly liable for any harm done if it is a natural consequence of the escape of the livestock “natural consequence” did not include personal injury. 2. “dangerous propensity”—more dangerous than is normal for the species wild animals SL is imposed for ANY injury proximately caused by the wildness of the animal In regard to human entry: SL rules apply to lcensees and invitees and maybe to discovered trespassers. proximately caused by the attribute of te activity for which SL is imposed. .i. It is foreseeable that negligently diagnosing a serious eye condition will result in damaged vision. The negligent diagnosis must also have to be the cause in fact and proximate cause of the eye damage 1. Strict liabiity The existence of a duty to elimate any risk of injury to a foreseeable plaintiff resulting from certain inds of activies. EXCEPT if the owner had prior knowledge of a particular aggressive animal. the child would not have blurry vision.

or furnishes a product that flows through the stream of commerce to someone who gets injured by that product usually includes commercial sells . Defenses for strict liability Contributory negligence is not a defense to strict liability where plaintiff negligently puts himself in danger without deliberately acting in the face of a known risk Assumption of the risk is a defense Comparative fault . but maybe negligence.P can not recover under strict liability if participated meaningfully in activity.damages are reduced by plaintiff’s proportional fault in causing his own injury . sells.assumption of the risk product liability deals with the liability of an entity that manufactures.