Intentional Interference with Person or Property Flashcards
What is a single intent?
Plaintiff must prove only that defendant intended to touch plaintiff, resulting in offense or harm (majority)
What is a dual intent?
Plaintiff must prove both that defendant intended to cause a bodily contact and to offend or harm plaintiff (minority; CA requires dual intent)
Is a person liable when intending to harm someone with unreasonable force?
If a person intends to harm someone, with unreasonable force, under all circumstances, then the person would be doing an unlawful act, thus liable for the injuries caused (Talmage v. Smith)
Under battery, what is the intent required?
The intent required is the intent to make contact–it is not the intent to do the act that leads to contact, and it is not intent to harm
Under battery, what is sufficient to show contact?
Knowledge with substantial certainty that a contact will occur is sufficient
Under battery, what must the contact be?
The contact must be volitional
Under battery, what type of contact suffices?
It is sufficient for contact to be made with something closely associated with the plaintiff
Under battery, what is the objective test?
The test is what would be offensive to an ordinary person not unduly sensitive as to personal dignity
Under battery, what is not required?
Bodily harm is not required
Under assault, what is sufficient to place the plaintiff in anticipation of harm?
The defendant’s apparent ability to cause harm can be sufficient
Under assault, do you need fear?
No, we need apprehension not fear.
Under assault, what does apprehension mean?
Means the person has to feel the apprehension and not learn about it afterward
Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, in addition the physical barriers, how else can false imprisonment be established?
False imprisonment can be accomplished by force, threat of force, duress, or asserted legal authority
Under false imprisonment, is moral persuasion sufficient to prove this tort?
No, moral persuasion is insufficient to establish confinement
Under false imprisonment, what is sufficient to show confinement?
It is sufficient if the defendant fails to release the plaintiff from a confinement despite owing a duty to do so
Under false imprisonment, what is a reasonable means of escape?
If one exit of a room/building is locked with plaintiff inside, but another reasonable means of exit is left open, there is no false imprisonment (the exit must be readily available and a safe means)
Under false imprisonment, what is the test for conscious of confinement?
The test is whether the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement as it was happening (failure to remember the confinement after the fact is insufficient to show plaintiff was conscious of the confinement)
When can a false arrest arise?
When one is taken into custody by a person who claims but does not have proper legal authority (Enright v. Groves)
Under IIED, how severe must the emotional distress be?
The emotional distress must be beyond what a reasonable person could endure
Under IIED, what intent must be present?
It is not the intent to do the act that leads to severe emotional distress. It is the intent to cause severe emotional distress upon the plaintiff with the act
Under IIED, what is extreme conduct?
Conduct is extreme if it exceeds all possible limits of decency in a civilized society and is especially calculated to inflict severe and emotional distress
Under IIED, will mere insults and vulgarities suffice for the conduct element?
No, mere insults and vulgarities will not suffice
Under IIED, what needs to be established about the conduct?
The context and manner in which the conduct is directed at the plaintiff is to be established
Under trespass to land, does defendant have to intend to harm land?
Defendant does not have to intend to harm land
Harm is not required
Under trespass to land, what does the intent only need?
Defendant only needs to intend to do the act that leads to the physical invasion onto the land of another
Under trespass to land, what can a physical invasion consist of?
A physical invasion can be:
1. of the airspace above land
2. of the subsurface
3. when someone fails to remove something from the property after consent or privilege to be on the property has been withdrawn
Under trespass to chattels, what intent is required?
Only intent to do the act is necessary
The defendant need not intend to interfere
Under trespass to chattels, what is sufficient?
- dispossession (intent to deprive);
- impairment to the property’s condition, quality, or value;
- deprivation of use for a substantial period of time
- bodily harm is caused to the possessor or harm is caused to some person or thing in which the possessor has a legally protected interest
Under conversion, what can the chattel consist of?
The chattel can be a document if the contents of the document are capable of causing economic damage-literary property, scientific invention, trade secrets, or info held to be sold
Under conversion, in determining the seriousness of the interference, what factors are important?
- Extent and duration of the actor’s exercise of dominion of control
- Actor’s intent to assert a right in fact inconsistent with the other’s right of control;
- Actors good faith
- Extent and duration of the resulting interference with the other’s right of control
- Harm done to chattel
- Inconvenience and expense caused to the other
Under revocation of actual consent, what is an exception?
An exception exists when it would be unreasonably burdensome for the defendant to immediately comply with the revocation
*Consent doesn’t apply retroactively
Under self -defense, when does it terminate?
When the threat of force upon the defendant no longer exists, the privilege to use self-defense terminates. A defendant may be liable for conduct done in the name of self-defense if there is no immediacy
Under self-defense, what justifies use of a deadly weapon?
To justify resistance with a deadly weapon the plaintiff must have a reasonable apprehension of loss of life or great bodily injury
Under minority jurisdictions, what is the duty to retreat?
Before using deadly force in self-defense the defendant must attempt to make a reasonable retreat, except when in their home
Under majority jurisdictions, what is the duty to retreat?
No need to retreat and a defendant can use deadly force if they reasonably believe deadly force is immediately necessary to protect against the threat of death or great bodily injury
