definitions of the elements Flashcards
Volitional Act
A volitional act is done with a conscious effort independent of any outside sources or medical emergency interferences.
Intent
intent is a purpose/desire to cause something or know with substantial certainty that their act or consequences of their act would result.
To prove intent, the plaintiff must show either that the defendant acted with a desire or purpose to cause contact or apprehension, or otherwise acted with substantial certainty that contact or apprehension of contact would result.
Harmful or Offensive
Injury qualifies as harm. To be offensive, the contact must injure the plaintiff’s sense of dignity or otherwise be something a jury would consider offensive, such as being embarrassed or humiliated in public.
Contact
The contact does not have to be direct between the plaintiff and defendant. The element is satisfied by contact set into motion indirectly by the defendant, or by the defendant touching something attached to the body of the plaintiff, like clothing.
Apprehension
To satisfy the element of apprehension, the plaintiff must have perceived or expected an imminent contact–it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove they were fearful. Threats can satisfy the element of apprehension but only if the plaintiff believes the defendant to be capable of carrying out the threat. Because apprehension must be imminent, conditional threats or contact that is not temporally imminent do not count.
confinement
To be confined, the plaintiff must be restricted to some closed, bounded area for some appreciable amount of time. There must be no reasonable means of escape, but there is no minimum amount of time.
A plaintiff can be confined by physical barriers, but also by force or an imminent threat of force. Threats to property or chattels may also suffice to confine the plaintiff.
Awareness of Confinement
Awareness of the confinement is similar to the element of apprehension for assault–the plaintiff must perceive the confinement at the time they are confined.
extreme and outrageous conduct
Conduct that transcends all bounds of decency tolerated by society, this is ultimately determined by the court (jury or judge).
in so substantial a manner as to warrant a forced sale or damages paid by the defendant for the full value of the chattel.
Acts of Conversion include:
Wrongful acquisition, e.g., theft, embezzlement.
Wrongful transfer, e.g., selling, mis-delivering, pledging.
Wrongful detention, e.g., refusing to return to the owner.
Substantially changing.
Severely damaging or destroying.
Misusing the chattel.
Under this principle, even a bona fide purchaser of a chattel may become a converter if the chattel had been stolen from the true owner.
Accidental Conduct Insufficient -Accidentally causing damage to or loss of another’s chattel does not amount to conversion unless the actor was using the chattel without permission when the accident occurred. (Note that the actor may be liable in negligence for accidental damage but not conversion.)
Defamatory statement
The statement must tend to harm the reputation of the plaintiff and lower them in the estimation of the community or deter third persons from associating with them.
regarding a matter of fact
The statement must be about a matter of fact, not opinion. Courts consider the context, medium, audience, and provability of the statement to determine if it is fact or opinion.
of and concerning the plaintiff
The statement must identify the plaintiff, either directly or by implication. A small group can be identified, but a vague or ambiguous statement may not be sufficient.
Published
The statement must be communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff. This is known as “publication” in the legal sense, and it doesn’t require formal publication like in a book or newspaper
Libel
A written or permanently recorded statement
slander
A spoken or ephemeral statement
special damages
Quantifiable monetary losses
Public statement
A public statement is one that was disseminated to a broad audience or group. A few or a small number of people will not suffice.
Actual Malice
means the defendant either knew the statement was false or acted with Reckless disregard for the truth.
intrusion
An intrusion can be physical or otherwise (spying camera, peeping tom, etc)
private zone
A private zone is one where the plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Not of legitimate public concern.
refers to information that is not relevant to the public interest or not important
duty of care
the plaintiff must show the defendant had a legal obligation to act with reasonable care towards the plaintiff.
breach of duty
The defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person under the circumstances.
actual causation
(the injury would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s conduct)
proximate causation
the injury was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct) of the plaintiff’s injury
Injury
The plaintiff must show they suffered actual harm to their person or property
Absolute duty of safety
The defendant must owe the plaintiff an absolute duty to ensure safety concerning a particular condition or activity. This means the defendant is liable for any harm arising from that condition or activity, regardless of precautions taken.
Usually arises from one of the five categories:
1.keeping a Wild animal
2.Trespassing livestock
3.Domestic animal with known vicious propensities
4.Ultrahazardous conditions
5.Product defects
Actual damages
meaning there was an actual loss or suffrage of harm (nominal will not suffice)
false light
is the major misrepresentation of character, history and/or belief And does not require reputational harm. For false light, a plaintiff can sue over a false statement even if it is reputation-enhancing rather than being reputation-harming, so long as the reasonable person would find it offensive.
Special Relationship
is one with trust and control.
Examples of Pre-Existing Special Relationships:
* common carriers, to passengers
* innkeepers, to guests
* landlords, to tenants
* stores, to customers
* possessors of land open to the public, to members of the public lawfully present * schools, to students
* employers, to employees
* jailers, to prisoner
* day-care providers, to the children or adults being cared for
duty
“Conformance to the legal standard of reasonable conduct in the light of the apparent risk;”
DEFAULT RULE FOR DUTY OF CARE (FOR EXAMS):
The Restatement (Second) of Torts S 322 (1965) takes the following position:§ 322. Duty to Aid Another Harmed by Actor’s Conduct: If the actor knows or has reason to know that by his conduct, whether tortious or innocent, he has caused such bodily harm to another as to make him helpless and in danger of further harm, the actor is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent such further harm.
Reasonable Person
A reasonable person is a hypothetical individual that approaches every situation with the appropriate amount of caution and then sensibly takes action. This is used as the legal standard for many torts, and varies based on situations and circumstances and is ultimately determined by the court- generally a jury.
transfered intent for intentional torts
Transferred Intent
Transferred intent may be invoked only where the tort intended and the tort that results are both within the following list:
Assault;
Battery;
False imprisonment;
Trespass to land; and
Trespass to chattels.
The transferred intent doctrine applies where the defendant intends to commit a tort against one person but instead (1) commits a different tort against that person, (2) commits the same tort as intended but against a different person, or (3) commits a different tort against a different person. In such cases, the intent to commit a tort against one person is transferred to the other tort or to the injured person for purposes of establishing a prima facie case.
A swings at B, intending only to frighten him. A’s blow lands on C. A’s intent to commit assault on B is transferred to C, and A’s act constitutes a battery on C.
