§ Assault

Cullison v. Medley (1991)(pg. 50)

Facts: Cullison was in his home, Ernest came into his home and carried a gun and grabbed for
his gun multiple times and shook the gun at the PL and threatened to “jump astraddle” of
Cullison if he did not leave Ernest’s daughter Sandy alone…another occasion in public where
Medley sat next to Cullison and glared at him while armed with a handgun in a holster.

Issue: Did Medley’s conduct constitute an assault?

Rule: Assault

Assault Elements:

1. When one acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive conduct with the person of the
other or
2. An imminent (conduct that will occur without significant delay, R3oT) apprehension (an
awareness of an immienet touching that would be a battery if completed) of such
contact

**An Assault is different than Battery in that it is a touching of the mind, if not of the body!!**
**Damages don’t just have to be physical but can be mental distress and trauma**
**Any act of nature – in apprehension that a reasonable person would comprehend may
constitute as assault*

Conclusion: Testimony showed that Cullison was reasonable in his apprehension of the threat
made by Medley and this constitutes an assault. Court of Appeals erred in decision. Reversed
and remanded.

A second form of transferred intent: is when a defendant commits one tort and ends up
committing another

§ False Imprisonment

McCann v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc (2000) (pg 54)

Facts: McCann sons were thought to be previous shoplifters by WalMart Employees, they told
Ms. McCann “ she had to go with them”, that they called the police and that they were on their
way and stood guard over Ms. McCann and her two sons.

Issue: Did WalMart falsely imprison the McCanns based on the concept of false imprisonment?

Rule: False Imprisonment

False Imprisonment Elements:

1. Conduct by an actor which is intended to, and does in fact, “confine” (implies limited
range of movement by threat, assertion of authority, or duress)
2. Another
3. Within boundaries fixed by the actor,
4. Where the victim is conscious of the confinement or harmed by it

*Confinement does not have be physical but can also be mere threats of physical force and
suffice*

False Imprisonment: when a person confines another INTENTIONALLY without lawful privilege
and against his consent withing a limited area for any reasonable amount of time, however
short. Plaintiff must have been aware of the confinement at the time or else must have
sustained actual harm

False Imprisonment is a TRESPASSORY TORT…only need to prove intent and can recover if no
physical damages.

Actual harm is not required unless to support where PL was not aware of the confinement
when it took place.

False Arrest: rule still applies just done by a police officer improperly arrests someone

Conclusion: Affirmed.

§ Torts to Property
Three torts that involve direct application of force to property – trespass to land, conversion of
chattels, and trespass to chattels

A. Trespass to Land
Briggs v. Southwest Energy Production Company (2020) (pg. 57)

Facts: Briggs owned property. Southwest Energy through fracturing obtained natural
gas. Briggs sued stating that the oil and gas was beneath the surface of his land and
constitutes trespass
Issue: Did Southwest Energy commit a trespass to land by extracting the gas from under
Briggs’ property? No
Rule: PA RULE: A trespass occurs when a person who is not privileged to do so intrudes
upon land in possession of another, whether willfully or by mistake
Conclusion: Affirmed
Trespass to Land Elements:

1. Plaintiff must prove that Defendant INTENTIONALLY entered land

2. In possession of another or cause a thing or third person to do so, and
3. Plaintiff must prove ownership or possessory interest in the land, and
4. An intentional and tangible invasion or entry by Defendant onto the land
5. Harms the Plaintiff’s interest in exclusive possession

** INTENT ONLY TO ENTER THE LAND IS NEEDED*** **DOES NOT NEED TO PROVE INTENT TO
TRESPASS**

Trespass v. Nuisance:

Trepass is an invasion of the plaintiff’s interest in the exclusive possession of his land v.
Nuisance is an interference with his “use and enjoyment of it”

Damages for Trespass: Can be nominal damages if no physical harm is done

Can be compensatory damages for loss of use of land or emotional
distress
Can be punitive damages if trespass is “deliberate” or malicious

B. Conversions of Chattels – Trover

Reif v. Nagy (2019) (pg.60)
Facts: Owner was sentenced to Nazi concentration camp
Issue:
Rule:
Conclusion: