--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intentional Torts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intentional Torts Definition Elements Case Law

Battery 1. Intent to cause Vosburg v. Putney

The intent to cause harmful or offensive McGuire v. Almy
harmful or offensive contact
Garret v. Dailey
contact, resulting in 2. That results in
such contact
such contact

Assault The intent to cause 1. Intent to cause I. de S. and Wife. W.

imminent apprehension imminent de S.
of contact, resulting in apprehension of
Tuberville v. Savage
such apprehension contact
2. That results in
such apprehension

Trespass to Land The intentional 1. Intentional Dougherty v. Stepp

unauthorized entry into unauthorized entry Cleveland Park Club
the property of another 2. Entry into the
v. Perry
property/close of
another

Conversion The intentional exercise 1. Intentional Zaslow v. Kroenert

of dominion or control exercise of dominion Russell-Vaughn Ford
over another’s chattel or control of another’s
Southern Counties v.
that seriously interferes chattel
with the rights of another 2. That seriously RKO
interferes with the
right of another
3. That the actor
may be required to
pay the other the full
value of the chattel

False Imprisonment The intentional 1. Intent to Bird v. Jones

confinement of another 2. Confine with no Coblyn v. Kennedy’s Inc.
without leaving a reasonable means of Whittaker v. Sanford
reasonable means of escape Taylor v. Johnson
escape 3. That results in Sindle v. NYC Transit
 confinement Authority

Intentional intentional 1. intentional

Conduct resulting in 2. conduct
Infliction of Severe emotional distress 3. resulting in Severe
Emotional Distress emotional distress

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defenses to Intentional Torts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defenses to Intentional Elements Case Law

Torts

Consent ● Exists when actor is willing for Mohr. v. Williams

the conduct to occur Kennedy v. Parrot
● Applies to all intentional torts O’Brien v. Cunard
● Revocable at ANY time
Schloendorff v. Society of NY Hospital
● Complete defense; counteracts a
Hudson v. Craft
tort claim
● Cannot be given for illegal
activity/criminal acts

Self-Defense ● Exists sometimes; sometimes it Courvoisier v. Raymond

does not Morris v. Platt
● Privilege
● A person is entitled to use
reasonable force to prevent any
threatened battery, confinement,
or imprisonment
● Only available when party
reasonably believes there is an
immediate threat of harm
○
● Defendant has the burden of
proving privilege of self-defense
existed
● May only use force
REASONABLY required to
protect self against harm
(commensurate force)
 Defense of Property ● Person may use REASONABLE Bird v. Hollbrook
force to defend property
Katko
● “no man can do indirectly what
he is not allowed to do directly”
● Interest in life is greater than
interest in property
● Privilege—not a complete
defense
● Notice is required
● “Gentle Hands Doctrine”

Necessity ● A person has the right to harm Ploof v. Putnam

the property interest of another to
Vincent v. Lake Erie
prevent harm to self or third
parties Transportation Co.
● Extends to property, persons, and
animals
● Implies that there is no other
reasonable alternative with lesser
consequences
● Incomplete privilege because
party must pay for the damages
caused to the property

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Negligence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Negligence Notes/Key Elements Case Law

Reasonable Person ● Level of care is Vaughn v. Menlove

determined by what an
average person under the
circumstance acting with
ordinary prudence would
do
● Always objective
Roberts v. Ring
Daniels v. Evans
Breunig v. American Family Insurance
Co.
Fletcher v. City of Aberdeen
Denver & Rio Grand R.R. v. Peterson
Calculation of Risk ● Tool in assessing
whether there has been a
breach in due care
● Terry’s negligence (5
factors)
● Hand Formula (B<PL)
Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works
Eckert v. Long Island R.R.
Osborne v. Montgomery
Cooley v. Public Service Co.
United States v. Carroll Towing Co.
Andrews v. United Airlines

Custom ● Relevant standard for TITUS v. Bradford

evaluating reasonable Mayhew v. Sullivan Mining co
care The TJ Hopper
● A floor, not a ceiling
Lama v. Borras
● General practice in same
Canterbury v. Spence
same industry in a
particular location and in
a particular time period

Statutes 3 options with the statute: Osborne v. Mcmasters

○ Negligence per Gorris v. Scott
se; Martin v. herzog
○ Evidence of Ross v. Hartman
negligence;
Uhr. v. Eastgreenbush
○ Statute is
Irrelevant
● Negligence Per se (4
elements
1. statute protects a class
2. Breach of statute effects
someone in class
3. Violation of the statute caused
the injury
4. the statute was designed to
prevent that type of injury

Res Ipsa ● An evidentiary Doctrine Bryne v. Boadle

● “The thing speaks for Wakelin v. London
itself:” Colmenares Vivas v. Sun
● Argues that a jury should
Alliance insurance
infer negligence from the
Benedict v. Eppey Hotel co.
very fact of the accident
or injury Ybarra v. Spangard
● Creates an inference
jury may or may not
accept
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAUSATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cause in Fact Proximate Cause

This was, in fact, the cause of the injury ● Defendant will only be liable for the
reasonably foreseeable results of his/her
Cause in Fact Tests: (2) actions
1. “But for Test”: would this have happened ● Legal cause of the injury
to plaintiff but for the actions of the defendant? Proximate Cause Tests
● More likely than not 1.Foresight Test: forward looking test
standard ● Are the damages foreseeable? If you cannot
foresee the consequences, then you cannot be
●A fact finder must be able to responsible for the consequences
conclude that more likely ● If the damages are truly extraordinary or
than not defendant’s act or exceptional to the point that a reasonable
omission was the cause of person could or should not have foreseen
the plaintiff’s injury them, then there is no liability.
2. Substantial Factor Test: used when you 2. Directness Test: backward looking test
have more than one “but for” contributors ● Start with the harm then work backwards to
● More applicable when there the actions of the defendant to see if there are
are two or more potential any intervening causes
causes to the harm that ● Then determine if any intervening causes are
cannot be separated from the superseding (if contemplatable within the
harm original duty, then they are not unexpected or
○ Both A&B caused extraordinary)
the harm. Both are
liable.
● Alternative Liability: when one of
two or more negligent parties caused
the plaintiff’s injuries, then both may
be held responsible
○ Burden shifts to the
defendants to absolve
themselves of liability if
possible
○ A or B caused the harm.
Both breached a duty, shift
burden to defendants so they
can prove whose breach of
duty caused the injury
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Negligence Infliction of Emotional Distress
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Cases

NIED Rule: Mitchell v. Rochester Railway
1. Plaintiff must witness the harm (proximity to Dillion v. Legg
the scene of the victim’s injury)
2. Plaintiff must be closely related to the injured
person (close relationship)
3. Must be at the same time injury cannot be far
removed from the accident (contemporaneous).

● There must be actual harm, but not necessarily

physical harm caused by the negligence
● The harm still must be reasonably foreseeable
● Start with the duty breached then determined
if the result could have been contemplated
● Close relationship does not include dating
partners or extended family
● Cannot be applied where accident is not
observed directly

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Vicarious Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vicarious Liability Cases

● Respondeat Superior: one sub-category of Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. United States
liability; specific to employment relationship Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois, Inc.
● Basic Rule: an employer is responsible for
employee’s conduct if within the scope of
employment
● Frolic and detour:
○ Frolic (major deviation): employer is
typically not responsible; outside scope of
employment
○ Detour (minor deviation): employer
continues to be responsible; foreseeable
● Foreseeability determines what falls within the
scope of employment
● General Rule for Independent Contractors: no
liability

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSES TO NEGLIGENCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUTIES OF OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Negligence

1) The rule for negligence is to hold the defendant to a reasonable person

standard of care.
 2) The rule for establishing negligence is that in order to be liable, a person
must be acting in a way that does not comply to that of an ordinary and
reasonable person.
3) The rule for negligence is to apply an expert standard of care to those
individuals who hold themselves out as an expert.
4) Under the doctrine of negligence per se, there must be (1) a statute
designed to protect a class of individuals; (2) breaching such statute must injure
somebody within the protected class; (3) the injury must be caused by the breach
of the statute; and (4) the injury was of the type the statute set out to prevent.
5) The evidentiary doctrine for res ipsa loquitur requires that there be (1) an
event that does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence; (2) the
defendant is in exclusive control of the instrumentality involved in the injury; and
(3) the plaintiff was not associated with the instrumentality.

Strict Liability

1) The rule for strict liability with regard to ultrahazardous or abnormally

dangerous activities is that one who conducts such activity is liable by default,
unless a superseding factor can be established.
2) The rule for strict liability with regard to dangerous animals is that an
owner is liable by default for any dangerous propensities of such animal

Vicarious Liability

1) The rule for vicarious liability is that a person may be held responsible for
the actions of another depending on the relationship between the two persons.
a. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be
liable for the acts of an employee if they occur within the scope of
employment.
 b. An employer is not necessarily held liable for the acts of an
independent contractor, unless those actions were within the demands of
the employer.

Causation (analysis sentences)

1) In order to establish a cause in fact, one must determine which of the

contributing forces was a substantial factor in causing the injury.
2) Under the directness test, a defendant is held liable for any consequences
of their initial breach of duty, unless such event is superseding.
3) Under the foresight test, a defendant is held liable for any extraordinary
events that were foreseeable as a result of the initial breach.