Defenses to intentional torts Flashcards
*Mohr
Consensual defense. Operation on left ear instead of right after finding it in more serious condition but plaintiff had only agreed to right and said operation greatly impaired her hearing, where court found that consent cannot just be implied. RULE regarding intent and consensual defense: “the absence of a showing that defendant was actuated by a wrongful intent or guilty of negligence does not necessarily relieve the defendant from charge of assault and battery.” RULE for still finding A&B when consensual defense: If no consent, and circumstances needed consent, the act was wrongful and therefore unlawful, so there was an A&B. RULE for damages when no evil intent: dependent on “character and extent” of injury, taking into account the beneficial nature of the operation and the defendant’s good faith.
O’Brien
Action can indicate consent. Plaintiff held out arm for vaccination when she arrived in US as immigrant.
Schloendorf
Newer rule: operation without consent = assault EXCEPT in emergency when patient unconscious and necessary to operate before consent can be given
Cruzan
Heightened evidentiary requirements before cutting off lifesaving treatment.
*Hudson
Prize fight due to payment from promoter. 2 theories: 1) Don’t accept consent: each can hold other liable for injuries under A&B bc breach of peace which no one can consent to (majority view and Oklahoma) 2) Accept consent: no tort (minority view, RST §60, Washington – volenti non fit injuria [the willing suffer no injury], ex turpi causa non oritur action [no action shall arise out of an improper or immoral cause], pari delicto [equal wrong]). Court says who cares – promoter is chief offender bc activating force, consent of combatants doesn’t relieve him of liability (based on public policy, negligence per se, and strict liability)
Hackbart
Pro athlete injuries: usually consent to injury accepted unless blows deliberately illegal, like here where a football player was intentionally hit out of anger and frustration, not as part of the game
*McGuire
Caretaker injured by insane person in violent spell where the court said that insane people have liability for torts. RULE for insane being liable: “Where an insane person by his act does intentional damage to the person or property of another he is liable for that damage in the same circumstances in which a normal person would be liable” BUT that means same particular intent is necessary (not addressing negligence). Why liable? Because if a loss must be borne by one of two innocent persons, it should be borne by him who occasioned it.
Lemon hypo
When insane person thought she needed to hurt Joan of Arc, intended to hit human vs. strangling lemon, only intended contact with a lemon. No liability for second. (Similarly, regardless of whether you are insane, if you intended to swat a fly and hit a human instead, there was no intent to commit an unlawful act, so not liable for battery).
*Courvoisier
C harassed by robbers, fired shot at a police officer coming towards him to help where court found it was error for the jury to not review C’s justification. RULE for self-defense cases: must look at the surrounding circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable person who thought his life was in danger. Can plead self-defense even if mistakenly thought under attack.
Morris
Liable to injured innocent 3rd party in self-defense cases only if should realize act creates an unreasonable risk of such harm. Hypo: missed shooter in classroom when trying to save class and hit person behind.
*Bird
Defense of property. Spring gun in garden hit teen looking for wandering livestock. Court found notice should have been given and said there was thus liability, especially since there was the express purpose of doing injury. Problem with this can be seen in Katko, where plaintiff committing larceny got hit with a shotgun trap and got $30,000 when he sued – violates the principle of commodum ex injuria non oritur [an advantage cannot arise out of a wrongful act].
*M’Ilvoy
Defendant shot and wounded plaintiff who was “attempting” to tear down fence on defendant’s land. Court said the wounding could not be justified barely in defense of possession. Category rule: trespasser -> ask/sue; destroying property -> throw them off property, which is “mere” A&B; assault -> can wound/respond with force. However, Schwab says “reasonable standard” might be better, bc imagine a super valuable statue at museum about to be destroyed by someone with hammer and you can only stop in time by shooting.
*Ploof
Necessity. Family sailing moored to dock in storm, servant unmoored and family got hurt where court found necessary to moor to dock. “This doctrine of necessity applies with special force to the preservation of human life.”
*Vincent
Steamship moored for unloading, stayed bc storm, damaged dock where the court said if act of God, no wrongful act of person sought to be charged, but said defendant’s theory that bc it was necessary they weren’t liable for damages was wrong bc vessel deliberately stayed in that position. Necessity may require something, but still compensate if making deliberate choice results in damages and wasn’t just the act of God. This is a case of “conditional” or “incomplete” privilege.
