Assault and Battery Flashcards
Vosberg v. Putney
Eggshell kneecap- school boy kicks his classmate
- Kicking plaintiff in the knee in the classroom (no implied license) constitutes battery even if defendant intended no harm, only needed intent to kick
- damages not limited to that which is reasonably foreseeable
RTT Battery elements
D has satisfied the intent for battery if he:
- intended to cause a harmful bodily contact or
- intended to cause imminent apprehension of a harmful bodily contact (RTT)
Garratt v. Dailey
Little boy pulls out chair from woman, he did not want her to hit the ground, but he may have known with certainty that she was sitting and would hit the ground…
found there was liability on the 5 yr old boy, but if he wouldn’t have known that taking the chair would cause harmful bodily contact he wouldn’t be liable
Talmage v. smith
stick throwing and transferred intent ; doesn’t matter who you meant to hit, as long as you meant to hit someone
RST Battery
changes the game from Vosberg; moves from intent to commit and act that causes harm to intent to cause harm itself;
an actor commits battery if (a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive bodily contact with the person of the other of transferred intent and (b)a harmful bodily contact results
Dougherty v. Stepp
D entered P’s land with a surveyor, w/o authorization, to assert a claim of right without marking trees or brush;
held that trespass is the unauthorized entry unto land regardless of physical damage to land; Strict liability!
Intel v. Hamidi
Email;
D, a former employee of P, sent email messages to P’s employees over the company intranet
Held that under CA law, trespass to chattels does not encompass an electronic communication that neither damages nor impairs the functionality of the computers
Poggi v. Scott
Held that the tort of conversion does not depend on intent or bad faith; a person converts property when he exercised unjustified dominion over someone else’s property, thereby causing loss.
RST 223, conversion is the intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other full value of the chattel
In determining the seriousness of the interference look to:
- extent and duration of the actors exercise over the chattel
- the actor’s intent to assert a right inconsistent with the other’s right of control
- the actors good faith
- duration of interference
- harm done to chattel
- inconvienience and cost caused to the other
defenses to intentional torts
Consent insanity self defense defense of property recapture of chattels necessity
Mohr v. Williams
D intentionally operated on P’s ear without consent
Held that every unlawful or unauthorized touching of another constitutes an assault and battery even in the absence of unlawful intent, no consent was implied
Hudson v. Craft
Boxing promoter
P injured as a result of an illegal prize fight promoted by D without license
Majority view that you cant consent to an illegal act
RTT Section 2
Recklessness:
A person acts reckless if:
(a) the person knows of the risk of harm created by the conduct or knows facts that make the risk obvious to another in the person’s situation
and
(b) the precaution that would eliminate or reduce the risk involves burdens that are so slight relative to the magnitude of the risk as to render the person’s failure to adopt the precaution a demonstration of the person’s indifference to the risk
McGuire v. Almy
Crazy lady!
Insanity not usually a valid defense to torts, responsible for their torts
Courvoisier v. Raymond
D shot P a police officer, when P came to arrest men (rioters) who were attempting to rob his store; thought the police was about to shoot him
held that self-defense requires a showing that under the circumstances the D feared for his life or safety
Morris v. Platt
accidental harming of an innocent bystander by force reasonably intended in self defense is not actrionable
