You are on page 1of 8

Torts Outline Purposes of tort law: (1) to provide a peaceful means for adjusting the rights of parties who might

otherwise ³take the law into their own hands´; (2) to deter wrongful action; (3) to encourage socially responsible behavior; and, (4) to restore injured parties to their original condition, insofar as the law can do this, by compensating them for their injury. 1. Daiagi v. Florida Water Management ± Riding dirt bike, 2. Holden v. Wal-Mart- Lady in parking lot, stepped in hole, needed knee surgery. Who was accountable, who was at fault (What %)? Clear liability? 3. Estevez- Measure of Damages- Past, Present, Future.


Intentional Torts
A. Assault, Battery, False Imprisonment, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), Trespass to Chattels, and Trespass to Land B. Intent y The actor desires to cause the consequences of his act, or believes that the consequences are certain to result from it. y Substantial certainty: If D knows with substantial certainty that a particular effect will occur as a result of her action, she is deemed to have intended that result. 1. Children- Those with diminished capacity (children and mentally handicapped) are liable for the harm they do (battery, assault, IIED), but are given some slack when harm is done to them (FI). 2. Transferred intent

A. Battery
y Definition: 1) intentional, (2) harmful or offensive (3) contact with the (4) plaintiff.intentional, unconsented-to contact with another. An act which directly or indirectly, is the legal cause of a harmful or offensive contact. Elements ± Intent, Offensive/Harmful unconsented to Contact, Harm Intent: It is not necessary that D desires to harm P. (1) D acted intending to cause a harmful or offensive bodily contact (direct or indirect); or (2) D intended to cause an imminent apprehension on P. P need not have been aware of the contact at the time. D need only have intended the contact. It does not matter that D intended no harm or offense. If P consents to the contact, D is privileged to make it and there is no tort Extends to personal effects: not only by contact with plaintiff¶s body, but also contact with her clothing, an object she is holding (e.g., a cane), etc. This applies to indirect contact, too (e.g., by ordering his dog to attack the plaintiff).

y y

y y y y

Is MR person capable of state of mind for intent? Was battery. Battery i. battery 5.offensive invasion of his person. Purpose. male nurse touched her. McAfoos ± 3 yro(CHILD) rode tricycle into VanCamp¶s leg. White v. B. Stoshak. All that is necessary is deliberate contact. Dual intent not satisfied. which satisfies objective test of what is harmful/offensive.caregiver hit by elderly women w/ Alzheimer s. Draw the line at just the contact. gets hit. Yes.Black person at club. you are responsible for all the harms to that person regardless of foreseeability 1. thus forming a contract. Cannot impose liability w/o fault. Doctor yelled at nurse. not negligence. plaintiff did not consent to the touching. Knowledge vs. smoke intentionally blown in face. Synder v. Intentcause to offend you. Transferred Intent. Mullins. Fisher. Substantial Certainty Test for intent -Did defendant know w/ certainty the outcome would be a battery.plaintiff against VanHoey. Single Intent. No Battery 7. Will not extend concept of invasion of person alone is tort to childish acts.Yes Battery 3. Appreciate the offensiveness of the contact. Smith. needed surgery.women attacked by MR in a store. 6.y Scope of harm: If you put a course of harm into motion. personal dignity.The hospital accepted the plaintiff s requests. Particulate matter properties of making physical/bodily contact. Dailey. Doesn t matter what intent was/wasn t if acting in tort and lands on another. employee snatches tray.Will not recognize liability w/o fault for otherwise innocent childish actions. 9. Yes Battery 8. Turk. intended to cause a tort. watch statute of limitations. did not consent for surgery to have student present. Yes. 10. Did not satisfy the elements. Cohen v.Scrub nurse. No Battery 2.Teacher gets in the middle of fight btwn students. 11. no distinguished fault/intent. battery.Any contact that is unconsented to. single intent i. you are liable. Baska. arratt v. Wagner.antismoking advocate. Dual Intent-The actor must intend the contact and intend that the contact be harmful and offensive. VanCamp v. Leichtman. Yes. No indication that VanHoey knew of the contract or that she intended to harm Mullins. Intentionally snatching the tray. No battery i. 4.Women hit by two boys fighting. Would have been transferred intent. Contact which is offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity is offensive contact. racist.Liable for any intentional torts. Muniz-. Assault   . The actor does not need to intend contact to be harmful/offensive. Breached contract. even when they are transferred onto a third party.5 yro pulling chair out from under. put face in surgery.Religious pregnant women.

a. no warning of imminent forceful tackle. Steps taken/movement towards battery iii. Words alone are not sufficient. Yes. ³Words alone´ rule: i. It must appear to P that the harm being threatened is imminent. w/o significant delay e. Awareness of an imminent touching that would result in a battery if completed. Apprehension test: i. Garnett. P is held within certain limits.y Intentionally causing imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact. c. not that she is prevented from entering . No actual battery. C.rednecks. ³Confinement´ i. invites her back. or to cause an imminent apprehension of such a contact. No assault. ii. Assault. in a limited area for any time. Must be reasonable ii. iii. 1. Apprehension is not to be confused with fear or intimidation. b. which arouses in P a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery. Intent to cause harm. offense or immediate apprehension of contact w/o significant delay. Imminence: i. Cullison met girl (16 yro).reasonable apprehension of imminent contact. Must look at the context d. Intent: i. iii. P must show that D either intended to confine him. ii. Apparentability will meet the apprehension requirement. must be an act or gesture. against the will of the plaintiff. There is no assault if the plaintiff does not realize that the act has occurred. demonstrate tackle. ii. Protecting freedom of movement a.intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact. or at least that D knew with substantial certainty that P would be confined by D¶s slammed student to ground. Intent to confine w/o privilege against consent. invasion of the mental place. Awarenessi. ii. False Imprisonment y Anact of intentional restraint that (2) confines P to a (3) bounded area any size for any amount of time. family shows up intimidated/threatened him. Koffman v. assault 2. Cullison. b. Without consent or lawful privilege. P must be aware of the threatened contact/act. touching of the mind.done with the required intent. Intent: The defendant must either have intended to cause the apprehension or contact. and that D has the present ability to carry out the threat.

P is present at the time. doesn¶t matter what size Bound Area i. not sufficient for the tort. and iii. by extreme and outrageous conduct. continued presence. ii. b. or must suffer some actual harm. Special relationship. Special Beliefs can be taken advantage of i. repetitive. Also by threats or by the assertion of legal authority. Offensive language is. had to go with them. not one time ii. y Restatement of Torts a. threatened calling police. link btwn parties (abuse of power) . The imprisonment can be carried out by direct physical means. or iii. iv. ³beyond all possible bounds of decency. If there is a reasonable means of escape (e. a. unless i. Continuous. a known way out). Witch in a circle 1. certain places. there is no false imprisonment. Transferred Intent Only When i. Means used: i. 2. D knows with substantial certainty that P will suffer emotional distress. i. McCann v. False assertion of legal authority. Intent i. Shopkeepers may have a privilege to detain persons suspected of shoplifting for a reasonable time for the purpose of conducting an investigation. Wal-Mart. P¶s presence is known to D. f. Yes FI. D¶s conduct has to be intolerable. d. D recklessly disregards the high probability that emotional distress will occur.children though to be suspected shoplifters. Or there is bodily harm done c. direction/orders. even in the absence of physical harm.´ d. P must either be aware of the confinement.c. D directs his conduct to a member of P¶s immediate family ii. ii. held family from leaving.g. e. D desires to cause P emotional distress. P must show that D¶s conduct was extreme and outrageous. ii. D is aware of super sensitivities/vulnerabilityof P iii. by itself. Awareness: P must know of confinement: i. ³Extreme and outrageous´ conduct: i.. An area is not bounded if there is a reasonable means of escape and P is aware of the egress point. ii. of severe emotional or mental distress. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) y Intentional or reckless (negligent) infliction.

Boundaries i. to enter P¶s property. knowledge of vulnerability. Distress was severe enough to seek medical aid. 2. D¶s good faith belief that he has a right to be there is no defense b. including particles or gases. thus punitive damages. ii. immediate reaches of the airspace and ii. d.The ongoing acts. Intent i. regular pattern of harassment. If D knowingly causes objects. Intended is merely to be on or enter another¶s property or remain ii.physical symptoms. but are known by the defendant to be present. ³Vomit Test´ f. substantially interferes with P¶s use and enjoyment of his land e. The conduct was not directed to the third person. extend above and below the surface c. Reasonable Persons Test i. i. Homer. without permission. intimidation. o No actual damage is necessary a. Severity. No actual damages the actual harm is the trespass. no longer tolerable. Something that interferes with the enjoyment of the land. so that the mental effect can reasonably be anticipated by the defendant. Bruce.e. Punitive damages may be awarded if the trespass is deliberate.repetition.Husband sues Shrink for Wife s actions. Air space i. Requires a balancing of factors between the harms & benefits of that which is creating the nuisance. ¡ 1. P must suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiffs who are not only present at the time. Jacquene hauling mobile home across fields. Particles and gases: i. Nuisance i. and humiliation despite objection going beyond the bounds of tolerable conduct. even if she entered rightfully. TE Southwest Inc v. What normally classifies the situations that cause ED J. y D puts an object on (or refuses to remove an object from) P¶s land without permission. most courts consider this trespass. y D remains on P¶s land without the right to be there. Markers of outrageous. ii. The severity + regularity of abusive and threatening conduct brings behavior to the realm of extreme and outrageous conduct. abuse of power. . Trespass to Land y D intentionally enters P¶s land.

Cuppels. Duration of D¶s dominion over the property ii.A continuing trespass. No wrongful motive is necessary ii. Taking a chattel from P¶s possession without his consent ii. not the full value of the property o Protects the right to unfettered possession of things. 1. the golf balls deprive the plaintiffs the exclusive possession of their land. Loss of possession. D¶s good or bad faith . Recovery is allowed even if the chattel is returned unharmed. The defendant acted with the intent to interfere with the property or with the knowledge that such interference would occur. Cause damage. Test to Constitute Conversion over Trespass i. Intent i. An intent to exercise dominion or control over the chattel ii. the golf balls. o D only has to pay damages. Kuprewicz. c. L.Amaral v. The mere act upon the chattel b. P is never required to (but may) accept a tender of the chattel¶s return in mitigation of damages. Trespass to Chattels y Any intentional interference with a person¶s use or possession of a chattel. Damages i. D¶s intent to assert a right which is in fact inconsistent with P¶s right of control iii. The market value is determined at the time and place of the conversion iii. o A trespass of such magnitude as to justify forcing D to purchase it o Forced sale o About usage (does not require damage) a. Intent i. Good faith or honest mistake is no defense b. The full value of the property converted ii. ³Joy Ride´ c. Dispossession i. But any dispossession is a trespass for which at least nominal damages may be awarded. School of Visual Arts v. o About possession (requires damage) near a golf course.pornographic emails. K. P must prove actual damages. ii. Damages i. Conversion of Chattels y An intentional interference with a P¶s possession/ownership/control of property y So substantial that D should be required to pay the property¶s full value.

Bona fide purchaser.iv. Bona fide purchaser: (Innocent Purchaser) i. Apparenti. ii. Even if P¶s actual (but undisclosed) state of mind was to the contrary. Destruction of the good by D v. Never had true title. or some relationship. Affirmative defenses Consent y Consent is a defense to almost any tort y Willing for conduct to occur. P¶s words or conduct manifesting consent are sufficient to create a privilege to D ii. o Implied ± apparent consent. The harm done to the chattel vi. Evident by:  Plaintiff¶sconduct or  Custom/usage. e. Withholding the good. o It is valid whether or not communicated. Implied consent When an emergency actually or apparently threatens death or serious bodily harm and there is no time or opportunity to obtain consent.selling of the stolen watch. The extent and duration of the resulting interference with P¶s right of control v. consent will be implied. a. ii. . Exceed the boundary/scope of consent. refuse to return iii. Unauthorized transfer by D iv. D takes possession of the property from P ii. The inconvenience and expense caused to P d. Conduct can manifest consent. even if there was no way for him to know they were stolen. b. The purchaser acts at her peril and may be sued for conversion by the true owner. o It is a matter of P¶s subjective state of mind. o Express ± words or writing was used. Keeton. Defenses to Intentional Torts Privileges various defenses in which special circumstances justify conduct which would otherwise be tortious. When Conversion Occurs i. Cannot obtain title from a thief iii. Objective manifestationi. Consent may be inferred from custom and usage. A bona fide purchaser of stolen goods is still a converter. Moves the chattel Prosser v. from prior dealings between the parties.

place. duration. The consent may be conditioned or limited as to time. etc. Lack of capacity: Consent will be invalidated if P is incapable of giving that consent. Consent given under duress is not effective the consent is not effective if the conduct consented to is a crime. because she is a child.D¶s privilege is limited to the conduct consented to or acts substantially similar. intoxicated. and extent. . unconscious. area.