Intentional Torts Amp Review

ISSUE #1 - PRIVILEGE SELF DEFENSE AND IN DEFENSE OF OTHERS

2 PARTIES (DEFENDER, AGGRESSOR) + DEFENDER HAS REASONABLE BELIEF

ABOUT TO BE ATTACKED OR IS BEING ATTACKED + DEFENDER USES
REASONABLE FORCE TO PROTECT HIMSELF
Rule: A person, who is the non-aggressor in a fracas is privileged to act reasonably
to defend his or her own safety.

Reasonable mistake as to the existence of danger does not vitiate the defense
Can only use self-defense to protect yourself against an impending attack.
Therefore, cannot use force if there is no longer any threat of injury.
The initial aggressor is not privileged to defend himself against the other partys
reasonable use of force in self-defense. (Exception: initial aggressor uses non-deadly
force and the other party is then attempting to attack with only deadly-force);
Retreat (Escape attempt) not necessary in majority of states; NY has a duty to
retreat before using deadly force (unless you are in your own home)
ATTENTION GRABBER:
2 parties and a threat to commit a tort by one party;
mistaken belief about one party creating an impending attack; retreat (duty to escape)
issues in NY; initial aggressor retreats/withdraws and is followed by escalating level of
violence.

3 Parties (DEFENDER, 3RD PARTY AIDED, AGGRESSOR) + DEFENDER HAS

REASONABLE BELIEF 3RD PARTY QUALIFIES FOR THE SELF-DEFENSE PRIVILEGE
Rule: To Defend 3rd party, you must reasonably believe that the 3 rd party qualifies
for the self-defense privilege. (Transfer self-defense privilege to yourself basically).

3rd person aided may be initial aggressor (if 3 rd party used non-deadly force against
other party);
The 3rd person aided need NOT have the right to use self-defense for you to escape tort
liability for defending them, you just need a reasonable belief that the 3 rd person can
use self-defense.
You may use deadly force to defend the 3 rd party if you are in danger of serious bodily
injury.
ATTENTION GRABBER: 3 parties in a self-defense situation; 3 rd party Aided as initial
aggressor; Defender using deadly force against Aggressor.
ASSESSMENT HERE: I failed to realize that a Defender could use deadly force to
protect a 3rd party, if the Defender was also in danger of seriously bodily injury
(threatened with deadly force).
View this as transferred self-defense claim for a
Defender BUT Defender need only have reasonable belief that 3 rd party Aided is entitled
to defend themselves.
ISSUE #2 BATTERY PRIMA FACIE CASE

ACT BY INTENDED TO BRING ABOUT+ HARMFUL (PAIN) OR OFFENSIVE

(UNCONSENTED) CONTACT + DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH S PERSON + NO
TORT QUESTION REVIEW -1
ACTUAL DAMAGES NECESSARY

Intentional Torts Amp Review

Rule: Battery is an act by the which brings about harmful or ofensive contact to
the s person and intended to commit the act

Painful conduct (causes injury, pain, or disfigurement); Offensive conduct is conduct

not expressly or impliedly consented to that a reasonable person of ordinary
sensibilities would find offensive.
Contact is anything directly or indirectly in contact with s person (direct:
touching/indirect: set motion in force that touches , e.g. set a trap hole in the
ground and falls in);
No apprehension of contact required (battery occurs if was not even conscious of
the harmful or offensive contact when it occurred, e.g. an unauthorized surgery on
an unconscious patient).
Transferred intent applies to battery (so if meant to commit assault but instead
came into harmful or offensive contact with , then that is battery)
ATTENTION GRABBER:
indirect set of occurrences that results in harmful or
offensive touching of the ; apprehension of battery (not battery!); transferred intent
from assault to battery, or transferred intent from one victim to another, or transferred
intent from assault to battery for another victim.
ASSESSMENT HERE: I failed to recognize that when examiner is asking for the prima
facie elements, it must be exhaustive! Harmful contact is not the only element. It is
Harmful and Offensive contact.
ISSUE #3 - CONVERSION COMPARE WITH TRESPASS TO CHATTELS

INTENDS TO COMMIT AN ACT + ACT CAUSES INTERFERE WITH s RIGHT OF

POSSESSION TO CHATTEL + ACT OF INTERFERENCE IS SERIOUS ENOUGH TO
WARRANT PAYING THE FULL VALUE OF THE CHATTEL (or replevin)
Rule: Intentional act that causes interference with the s chattel resulting in
substantial deprivation of possession. Remedy is a forced purchase of the chattel

(fmv at time of conversion) by the but the may waive the forced purchase and
seek restitution instead via replevin (taking back chattel).

Interference for purposes of conversion is a serious invasion of the s ability to use

the chattel (e.g. misusing the chattel, severely damaging or destroying,
substantially changing, wrongful transfer to another person, wrongful detention of
chattel and refusal to return to owner)
Mere intent to perform an act is required, not intent to interfere;
Accidental interfering with chattel does not result in conversion liability.
If the was using the chattel without permission when the accident occurred, then
that can result in negligence or conversion)
If refuses to return the chattel or alters it in some way, may be liable for
conversion because it so seriously interferes with s right to control/exercise
dominion over their chattel.
Property subject to conversion is tangible personal property and intangibles that
TORT QUESTION REVIEW -2

Intentional Torts Amp Review

have a physical form (e.g. a promissory note, warehouse receipt). Intangibles such
as customer lists, business routes, etc, are not the subject of conversion.
ATTENTION GRABBER: Longer withholding periods before returning, more extensive
use of s chattel; Bona-fide purchaser of chattel liabile if the chattel was stolen from a
true owner; interference that is serious as opposed to interference, no awareness of
taking conversion,
ASSESSMENT: Here, as with all intentional torts, I must remember that the act is
sufcient to satisfy the element of intent (all needs is to INTEND to commit the ACT,
which is very different than INTEND to bring about the harm). For conversion, that
means the need only intend to perform the act they did. Even if the conduct is wholly
innocent, an intentional tort means an intentional act. The causation requirement for
intentional torts is that that the act results in something (here interference).
SEPARATE the ACT AND CAUSATION to succeed on intentional tort questions!

ISSUE #4 - IIED BYSTANDER CASES VS. DIRECT IIED CASES

INTENDS TO COMMIT AN ACT + ACT AMOUNTS TO OUTRAGEOUS AND

EXTREME CONDUCT + ACT CAUSES SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS TO + NO
PHYSICAL INJURY REQUIRED BUT ACTUAL DAMAGES ARE REQUIRED
Rule: can recover from IIED 2 ways: 1) Bystander Case: Causes Severe Physical
Harm To A 3rd Person And The Sufers Severe Emotional Distress Because Of Her
Relationship To The Injured Person:

Injured person is close family member of

#2, #2 is present when the injury to 3rd person occurs; and the knew of s

presence and close relationship to injured party OR 2) is recipient of severe

emotional distress by s Act: act amounts to extreme and outrageous conduct
and that act caused severe emotional distress to .

is victim case: Outrageous conduct: transcends all bounds of decency tolerated by

society (e.g. extreme misuse of authority, extreme collection tactics by debt
collectors
Mere words not enough unless there is a special relationship between and or
knows of s extreme sensibilities.
s conduct may be intentionally or may be reckless (high probability that result
will occur)

ATTENTION GRABBER: Victims that are children, pregnant women or elderly people
may be more susceptible to emotional distress than the average person (known
sensitivities); Common carriers/innkeepers may require less than outrageous conduct
as well (e.g. insulting remarks to passengers)
ASSESSMENT: Dont confuse the two categories of IIED (1) Bystander IIED vs. (2)
IIED by Design/Purpose of the . The elements for the two are different and should
really be treated as two different IIEDs. In Bystander, need the close relationship, etc.
TORT QUESTION REVIEW -3

Intentional Torts Amp Review

In Direct Victim, need s design to cause severe distress to the directly.

ISSUE #5 EXPRESS CONSENT - DEFENSE TO INTENTIONAL TORTS

willingly submits to s conduct + has capacity + acts within scope of

consent granted
Rule is not liable for an otherwise tortious act if willingly consented to the s act.
Consent may be given expressly;(it may also be implied from custom, conduct, or words, or by
law).
Consent by mistake is valid defense for s conduct unless knew of the mistake or
caused the mistake.
Consent by fraud is not a valid defense for s conduct if the fraud goes to an
essential matter of the consent (non-collateral)
Consent obtained by duress is invalid but it must be fairly imminent duress (future
threats or economic deprivation are not sufcient to invalidate s express consent)
ATTENTION GRABBER: Mistake (willing submission to s act although misguided)
but Fraud/Duress (unwilling submission to s act); look for capacity issues with consent
ASSESSMENT: Timing is important for duress in the future (must be consent obtained
by a contemporaneous threat); Mistake doesnt invalidate consent unless the took
advantage of the somehow with the mistake (knew of it). ALSO, CONSENT
REQUIRES CAPACITY
ISSUE #6 IMPLIED CONSENT - DEFENSE TO INTENTIONAL TORTS

S IS PRESUMED TO CONSENT TO s ACT BASED ON CUSTOM AND USAGE OR

S CONSENT IS PRESUMED BASED ON S BEST INTERESTS (EMERGENCY,
PROPERTY INTEREST) + HAS CAPACITY TO CONSENT + ACTS WITHIN
SCOPE OF CONSENT
Rule is not liable for an otherwise tortious act if a reasonable person can conclude that
impliedly consented to s act based on Apparent Consent (reasonable person can infer from
prior custom/usage) or Law (reasonable person could infer s consent where action is
necessary to save s life or an important interest in another or property.

Consent will be implied in an emergency situation where the plaintiff is incapable of

consenting and a reasonable person would conclude that some contact is necessary
to prevent death or serious bodily harm;
Majority view person cannot consent to a criminal act. Some distinguish between
illegal acts that are breaches of the peace (e.g. cannot consent to a street fight) and
those illegal acts that dont breach the peace (e.g. can consent to prostitution).
Consent obtained is invalid defense when it is meant to protect members of victims
class (e.g. statutory rape)
ATTENTION GRABBER: Mistake (willing submission to s act although misguided)
but Fraud/Duress (unwilling submission to s act); look for capacity issues with consent
ASSESSMENT: Apparent consent must be reasonable. Use that as a yardstick for
apparent consent and it is easier to infer if it is appropriate or not under the
TORT QUESTION REVIEW -4

Intentional Torts Amp Review

circumstances (e.g. bumping into someone in a crowd, consent is reasonably implied from
the ordinary custom of bumping into people when you are in crowded public defense to
battery) (However, consent is not reasonably implied when you go in for eye surgery and
get surgery on your leg!)
ISSUE #7 INVALID USE OF LEGAL AUTHORITY- FALSE ARREST - DEFENSE TO
FALSE IMPRISONMENT

FELONY HAS IN FACT BEEN COMMITTED + CITIZEN HAS REASONABLE

GROUNDS TO BELIVE THE PERSON ARRESTED COMMITTED IT CITIZEN
ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT
Rule: An action for false imprisonment does not lie for an arrest or a detention made by
virtue of legal process duly issued by a court or official having jurisdiction to issue it.
However, where an arrest by a police officer or private citizen for a criminal offense without a
warrant is unlawful (i.e., not privileged), it may constitute false imprisonment.
Not sufcient to have reasonable grounds that a felony has been committed; felony
bust in fact have been committed.
Person arrested may not have committed the felony, the citizen need only
reasonably believe the person arrested has committed the felony.
Misdemeanor arrest is permissible by police ofcer or private citizen if involves a
breach of the peace and committed in the presence of the arresting party.
If a felony or breach of the peace is in process or reasonably appear to be in process,
both a police ofcer and private citizen are privileged to make an arrest.
ATTENTION GRABBER: private citizen + arrest; misdemeanor committed but private
citizen arrests , felony/misdemeanor not in the presence of the .
ASSESSMENT: Confused reasonable belief that a felony has been committed with
knowledge in fact that a felony has been committed (standard for private citizens).
Contrast that with felony arrest by a police ofcer, which requires only reasonable
grounds that a felony has been committed and person arrested has committed the
felony.

TORT QUESTION REVIEW -5