Intentional Tort Rule Statements

Question 1

What is a volitional act?

Answer 1

A volitional act is committed with conscious awareness and control. The defendant must not be unconscious, under hypnosis, or sleep walking when the act occurred.

Question 2

How many ways are there to establish intent?

Answer 2

Three ways
1. Specific Intent
2. General Intent
3. Transferred Intent

Question 3

Specific Intent

Answer 3

Specific intent requires evidence that a defendant acted for the purpose of causing a tortious consequence.

Question 4

General Intent

Answer 4

General intent requires evidence that a defendant acted with knowledge to a substantial certainty that the his actions would cause the tortious consequence.

Question 5

Transferred Intent

Answer 5

Intent can be transferred from person to person or tort to tort, or a combination of both. Not applicable to IIED and conversion.

Question 6

Nuances of Intent

Answer 6

Motive does not matter; good motive does not vitiate intent.

Mistake does not vitiate intent.

Question 7

Who can form intent?

Answer 7

Children
Mentally Ill People
Voluntarily Impaired People

Question 8

Causation

Answer 8

Direct and indirect causation

Question 9

Battery Elements

Answer 9

To establish a claim for battery, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted volitionally with intent to cause harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff or something intimately connected to the plaintiff’s person.

Question 10

What is contact?

Answer 10

Contact is physical touch to the plaintiff, or something intimately connected to the plaintiff.

Question 11

What is harmful contact?

Answer 11

Contact is harmful when it is physically damaging to the plaintiff, the plaintiff suffers actual injury or pain, illness or disfigurement from the contact.

Question 12

What is offensive contact?

Answer 12

Contact is offensive when it is non-consensual touching of the plaintiff and is contact that a reasonable person with ordinary sensitivities would find offensive.

Question 13

Dual intent jurisdiction for battery

Answer 13

In a dual intent jurisdiction, the defendant has specific or general intent both to make contact to the plaintiff’s person, or something intimately connected to the plaintiff’s person and that the contact be harmful or offensive.

Question 14

Single intent jurisdiction for battery

Answer 14

In a single intent jurisdiction, the defendant has specific or general intent to only make contact with the plaintiff’s person or something intimately connected to the plaintiff’s person.

Question 15

Assault Elements

Answer 15

To establish a claim for assault, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted volitionally with intent to cause reasonable apprehension of imminent battery.

Question 16

Assault -

Answer 16

It must be reasonably apparent that there is a present ability that the defendant will complete a battery in that immediate moment. Threats of future harm are not enough; it must be in that moment.

Question 17

What is reasonable apprehension?

Answer 17

Reasonable apprehension is when an ordinary person, who is not uniquely sensitive, in the position of the plaintiff would perceive that the defendant had the actual or apparent ability to complete the battery in that immediate moment.

Question 18

False Imprisonment

Answer 18

To establish a claim for false imprisonment, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted volitionally with intent to cause confinement or restraint of the plaintiff, against their will, to a bounded area, for any amount of time, with no reasonable means of escape.

Question 19

Where can a plaintiff be confined?

Answer 19

A plaintiff can be confined or restraint anywhere; to a moving vehicle, a boat, a chair, a room, or an open space.

Question 20

What is the time period for confinement?

Answer 20

The time period for confinement of a plaintiff can either be short or for a long period of time.

Question 21

What is no reasonable means of escape?

Answer 21

An escape is unreasonable if it will expose or cause harm to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff knows of an existence to escape and it is visible, then it could possibly be a reasonable way out.

Question 22

FI - Majority Jurisdiction

Answer 22

In majority jurisdictions, it is required that the plaintiff be conscious at the time of confinement.

Question 23

FI - Minority Jurisdictions

Answer 23

It is required that the plaintiff either be consious at the time of confinement or that the plaintiff suffered actual harm during the confinement.

Question 24

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) Elements

Answer 24

To establish a claim for IIED, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted not only volitionally, but also extreme and outrageous with either intent or recklessness to cause severe emotional distress.

Question 25

What is extreme and outrageous?

Answer 25

Extreme and outrageous conduct is beyond all bounds of decency tolerated by a civilized society.

Question 26

What is severe emotional distress?

Answer 26

Severe emotional distress is so severe that no reasonable person should be expected to endure it, such as threats to physical well-being, serious mental damage exhibited by medical evidence, and beyond just a mere insult or joke.

Question 27

IIED - Minority Jurisdictions

Answer 27

In minority jurisdictions, plaintiffs cannot bring a claim for IIED without physical harm.

Question 28

Trespass to Land Elements

Answer 28

To establish a claim for trespass to land, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted volitionally with intent to cause unlawful entry to land of real property in the plaintiff’s lawful possession.

Question 29

What is the object of intent for trespass to land?

Answer 29

The object of intent is to enter, the defendant does not need to intend to trespass. The mistake of entering the land does not vitiate intent, but accidents can.

Question 30

What is an unlawful entry of land?

Answer 30

An unlawful entry of land is a direct and tangible invasion of the real property of the plaintiff. A physical object enters the property, whether that be an arm, a bullet, a person’s body or an object. the defendant does not have to be on the land there just has to be a physical entry of something or someone. Non-tangible objects that do not constitute trespass include smoke, light, sounds and smell.

Question 31

What is a plaintiff’s real property?

Answer 31

A plaintiff’s real property is the land the person owns, and some usable depths below the land and the air space above the land in the immediate reaches.

Question 32

Damages for TtoL?

Answer 32

It does not matter if there is no damage to the land, damage is not necessary for this tort.

Question 33

Trespass to Chattel Elements

Answer 33

To establish a claim for trespass to chattels, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted volitionally with intent to cause unauthorized interference/intermeddling with the chattel of another.

Question 34

What is the object of intent in TtoC?

Answer 34

The object of intent is to dispossess or intermeddle with the chattel.

Question 35

When a person intermeddles with a chattel of another, the chattel must be one of the following:

Answer 35

damaged impaired in its condition, the owner is deprived possession for an amount of time or deprived of its use, or bodily harm to the owner, chattel, or another person.

Question 36

Damages to TtoC?

Answer 36

The damages for TtoC are limited to the return of the chattel or reimbursement for the time it was away from the lawful owner. A claim will not lie if there is no damage or dispossession to the chattel.

Question 37

Conversion Elements

Answer 37

To establish a claim for conversion, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted volitionally with intent to cause dominion or control over the chattel of another that is so serious in nature it cannot be recovered and the defendant must pay the owner full value of the chattel.

Question 38

To determine the seriousness of the damage to the chattel that the actor must pay full value to the owner, there are five factors to look to:

Answer 38

(1) the extent and duration of the actor’s exercise of dominion or control (2) the actor’s intent to assert a right in fact inconsistent with the other’s right of control, (3) the actor’s good faith (4) the extent and duration of the resulting interference with the other’s right of control, and (5) the inconvenience and expense caused to the other.

Question 39

Ways an actor can convert chattel:

Answer 39

The ways an actor can convert a chattel are (1) acquiring possession of it; stealing it (2) damaging or altering it; running something over intentionally and killing it (3) using it (4) receiving it (5) disposing of it (6) misdelivering it and the chattel is lost, or (7) refusing to surrender it.

Question 40

Damages for Conversion?

Answer 40

A plaintiff is entitled to damages equal to the full value of the chattel at the time and place of conversion.

Question 41

Consent – Defense

Answer 41

A person who consents or apparently consents to acts that would otherwise be an intentional tort cannot recover for those damages. There are two types of consent.

Consent is an affirmative defense in which the defendant must prove that the plaintiff consented to his actions.

Question 42

Expressed Consent

Answer 42

Expressed consent is consent that is expressly stated either verbally or in written expression; the person actually says he is willing to submit to the actions.

Consent made by mistake is valid unless the person caused the mistake or knew of it and took advantage of it.

Consent by fraud does not constitute valid consent, and consent given while under duress of physical force or threats is not valid either.

Question 43

Implied Consent

Answer 43

Implied consent is consent inferred from a person’s conduct. The agreement can be inferred from a person’s actions or gestures from certain circumstances by any reasonable person.

Consent can be implied in emergency situations.

Question 44

Who cannot give consent?

Answer 44

Children. but it can be subsituted by law in a medical emergency or by a parent.

Mentally ill and unoncious ppl

Question 45

Self Defense

Answer 45

Self defense is used when a person reasonably believes that they are about to be immediately attacked and they must use force that is reasonably proportionate to protect themselves against injuries.

Question 46

Self defense - Force

Answer 46

Force that is reasonably proportionate is equal to the force used on you or would have been used.

Question 47

Reasonable belief - Self Defense

Answer 47

If a person reasonably believes she is in danger, but it is a mistaken belief, the defense is still validated if it was a reasonable mistake.

A person may inflict deadly force only if there is a reasonable belief that she is about to be attacked and that force will cause serious bodily injury or death. There has to be a reasonable apprehension of loss of life.

Question 48

Self Defense Majority Jurisdictions

Answer 48

In majority jurisdictions, you do not have to retreat before using deadly force so long as necessary or proportionate.

Question 49

Self Defense Minority Jurisdictions

Answer 49

In minority jurisdictions, if you are not in your own home, retreat is required before using deadly force if you do so safely.

Question 50

Defense of Others

Answer 50

A person can use reasonable and proportionate force to defend another when that person reasonably believes that the person could not defend themselves.

How much force is allowed is as much force as a person would have been able to use to defend themselves.

Question 51

Defense of Others Majority Jurisdictions

Answer 51

In majority jurisdictions, mistake is okay as long as it was a reasonable error that you were reasonably mistaken.

In majority jurisdictions, retreat before use of deadly force is not required.

Question 52

Defense of Other Minority Jurisdictions

Answer 52

In minority jurisdictions, mistake is not okay. If you could tell the weapon was not real etc. then it is unreasonable.

Question 53

Defense of Property

Answer 53

A person may use reasonable force to defend one’s property against unlawful intrusions if either (a) the conduct of the intruder reasonably indicates that a request to leave would be useless or dangerous or (b) the person requested that the intruder leave to no avail.

Question 54

Peaceful invasion of property?

Answer 54

No force is necessary to use and all you have to do is ask the intruder to leave. If they do not leave, you can deploy reasonable force.

Question 55

Defense of Property - When to kill?

Answer 55

You cannot just kill because you are protecting your property. You cannot use deadly force UNLESS the intrusion of the property threatens the people who are on the premise.

Question 56

Recovery of Property

Answer 56

If property is already lost because a person obtained your property unlawfully, then the property owner may use only peaceful means to recover the property unless (1) she is in fresh pursuit and (2) has demanded and been refused return of the property (unless such demand would be futile or dangerous) and (3) then she may use reasonable force under the circumstances.

Question 57

Using force to recover property?

Answer 57

A person can use force if someone has just swiped the chattel from their hands because no time has lapsed. If no time has lapsed and they demand the property to be returned to them and the thief has refused this request, now reasonable force can be used under the circumstances that is necessary and proportionate.

Question 58

Public Necessity –> immune and absolute privilege

Answer 58

public necessity is a defense that can be used where a defendant interferes with a plaintiff’s real or personal property in an emergency in order to protect the community or society from a greater harm that would have occurred if the defendant had not trespassed.

A person may interfere with real property or personal property of another where the interference is reasonably necessary because it is actually or reasonably necessary to avoid a potential/threatened injury from a natural force AND because the threatened potential for injury is substantially more serious than the invasion that is used to prevent those injuries.

Question 59

Private Necessity –> Selfish!

Answer 59

Private necessity is a defense that can be used where a defendant interferes with a plaintiff’s property in an emergency in order to protect an interest of his own.

The person is acting in self-interest to protect themselves and their property. A person who damages personal property or property of another while acting out of private necessity must compensate the property owner for the damages resulted from their actions.

Question 60

Authority of Law

Answer 60

If a defendant is duly commanded or authorized by law to do what he does, he is not liable for doing it.

Question 61

Authority of Law – Who does it apply to?

Answer 61

The authority of law defense applies to police officers, military officials, prison officials, and mental health facility officials. These people may act under authority of law, engaging in conduct that would otherwise be tortious.

Question 62

Discipline

Answer 62

A person who has responsibility for a child is charged with maintaining discipline, may use reasonable force or restraint in performing that duty.

Question 63

How is reasonable force determined?

Answer 63

Reasonable force is determined by the circumstances such as the child’s age, sex, condition, offense, motive for behavior, and influence on other children. We must look to whether the force applied is reasonably necessary and appropriate to compel obedience or is it disproportionate and unnecessary.

Question 64

Who has responsibility of a child?

Answer 64

A person who has responsibility of a child can include bus drivers, babysitters, teachers, caregivers, schools, and childcare attendants. Parents can impose restrictions of discipline on caregivers even if the parents would be willing to do it.