Intentional Torts Flashcards
Dillan throws a rock at Xavier, but the rock misses Xavier and hits Pete instead. Pete sues Dillan. Would Dillan would be liable to Pete? Why or why not?
Dillan would be liable to Pete because he intended to commit a battery on Xavier and his bad intent will transfer to Pete.
● Liability for an intentional tort requires that there are no
applicable privileges or defenses
HYPOTHETICAL: David sees his archrival Pria walking across the street. Although David thinks it is unlikely he can throw a stone that far, David picks up a nearby stone and throws it at Pria. Has David acted with purpose/intent such that he may be found liable for tortious conduct? why or why not?
yes, because purposeful intent was established
HYPOTHETICAL: Darla is bored and decides to shoot her BB gun into a passing commuter train. She doesn’t want to hurt anyone, but she knows that the trains at that hour will be packed with passengers. She shoots her BB gun at a full passenger car passing by her, hitting Pete. Has Darla acted with intent such that she may be found liable for tortious conduct?why or why not?
Yes under knowledge intent
HYPOTHETICAL: Six-year-old Brian Dailey pulls a chair out from where he knows Mrs. Garrett is sitting. If Brian knew that it was substantially certain that this would cause Mrs. Garrett to fall to the ground, has he acted with the required intent? why or why not
Yes. Even though child is only a six-year-old if he was certain Ms. Garrett would fall to the ground.
EXAMPLE: Patrick hates to be touched and believes that when people touch him, they are trying to pass alien beings into his body. Dale taps him on the shoulder and asks him for the time. Patrick freaks out. If Patrick sues Dale for battery will he succeed?
No because even though Dale intended to touch him, but the touch was not harmful or offensive to a reasonable person.
T or F , brandishing an unloaded gun can still be assault. If true why?
▪ If the apprehension is reasonable, it doesn’t matter whether D could actually carry out the threat. For instance, brandishing an unloaded gun can still be assault.
: If Dracula says he will come back tomorrow to suck your blood, it is not an assault. why?
battery must be able to occur almost instantly.
If there is an open window on the first floor and P knows about it, is there confinement for purposes of false imprisonment? Why or why not
facts change: what if there is an open window on the third floor where the P is confined?
No because there is a reasonable means of escape the open window on the first floor
Yes the P is confined because there is not a reasonable means of escape. P would have to jump and risk injury.
Don takes all of Susan’s clothes and leaves her in the middle of the woods. Is susan falsely imprisoned? why or why not?
Yes because Susan does not have a reasonable means of escape, Don has falsely imprisoned her. Embarrassment and humiliation can apply here.
o P is Aware of Confinement or Injured Thereby (harm/damages)
If P is aware of confinement:
If P is unaware of confinement:
If P is aware of confinement: P is entitled to any damages the jury finds appropriate.
If P is unaware of confinement: P can only claim damages if injured by the confinement.
HYPOTHETICAL: Dennis quickly locks Professor Long’s classroom door during a Torts class, unlocking the room an hour later at the end of class. Every student is so engrossed in the lecture that nobody tries to leave the room during the class. Is Dennis liable for false imprisonment? Why or why not?
No because no one was aware and no one was injured by it.
EXAMPLE: Dora had an ongoing feud with Pamela. Dora calls Pamela, disguises her voice and says “This is General Hospital. Your child has just been rushed to the emergency room.” Pamela suffers severe emotional distress. Does Dora have the intent for IIED?
Change in facts: EXAMPLE: Dora is at the hospital and walks by the check-in desk where she overhears a discussion and thinks that one of the nurses is saying that Pamela’s child has been rushed to the emergency room. Dora calls Pamela and conveys this information.. Would this suffice?
Dora has the intent for IIED because it was her goal/intent to cause emotional distress.
This would suffice for IIED because it would be a form of recklessness.
EXAMPLE: Irene is driving around and gets lost in an unknown area. She sees Dennis standing on the sidewalk. Irene pulls over and asks Dennis for directions to the freeway entrance. Dennis says to take his dirt road to the end, and make a left. Property doesn’t belong to Dennis, but to Prince who has hidden cameras. Prince finds Irene on his property and sues her for trespass. Will Prince recover? why or why not?
Prince will recover because Irene intended to enter that land and Dennis intended to get Irene to enter the land. Mistake is not a defense.
EXAMPLE: Darla thinks she is crop dusting her own land but the pesticide lands on Owen’s land. Owen has leased the property to Tom. CanTom can bring a trespass to land action? why or why not?
Yes because he is in possession of the land. If permanent damage occurred, Owen would have a claim.
EXAMPLE: Irene is driving carefully across the dirt road, hits a pothole and loses control of her car. She hits an azalea bush worth $15,000. She is liable for this destruction because ?
She is liable for this destruction because it occurred while she was trespassing.
EXAMPLE: Dale is leaving a restaurant and takes a blue denim jacket, believing it is his but it actually belongs to Paul. Is this sufficient to create trespass to chattels?
Yes This is sufficient to create intent for trespass to chattels.
EXAMPLE: Pam and Dexter are at Pam’s apartment. They are playing a game where every time “foreseeability” comes up, they do a shot of tequila. Once they finish the first bottle, Pam says she will go to the store to get more. Pam’s dog is in the backyard, and Pam tells Dexter not to let the dog in the house or touch the dog. Pam comes back to find Dexter holding the dog. If Pam sues Dexter for trespass to Chattels will she have a valid claim?
No If the dog is unharmed, Pam will not have a valid claim against Dexter.
EXAMPLE: Dale takes Paul’s jacket and loses it. Paul sues for conversion. is Dale liable? why
If successful Dale will have to pay?
Dale is liable because he had the purpose to exercise dominion and control over the jacket and, by losing it, there is a serious and substantial interference.
fair market value for the jacket
EXAMPLE: Cruella steals Peter’s Ming vase worth $1,000,000. Cruella sells the vase to Drake, who pays fair market value. Peter can sue Cruella for conversion. If Peter cannot find Cruella, can Drake be sued? why or why not
Yes Drake, as a converter, can be sued. Either has to pay $1,000,000 to Peter or return the vase.
Define and Distinguish Trespass to Chattels versus conversion
Trespass to Chattels- Committed by intentionally dispossessing or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another.
Conversion- Committed by intentionally exercising dominion or control over a chattel and seriously interfering with the rights of the owner.
Trespass to Chattels- Defendant is liable for damage or diminished value of chattel.
Conversion- Defendant is liable for the full value of the chattel at the time of the conversion.
T or F Mistake is not a defense in Trespass to Chattels or Conversion
True
BAR EXAM APPLICATION
Question 1
Hiker was tired and looking for a place to rest for a while. According to her cell phone, the trail she was on was about to come to a nice tree-shaded park open to the public. Hiker left the hiking trail and entered what appeared to be the park. Hiker took a nap under a tree for an hour and then left the property, returning to the hiking trail. The property was not in fact a park but private property owned by Dell. Dell sues Hiker for trespass to land.
Which of the following is most correct? why
(A) Hiker is liable for trespass to land.
(B) Hiker is liable if a reasonable person would have known that the property was private property.
(C) Hiker is liable provided she caused harm to the property.
(D) Hiker is not liable unless she recklessly entered the property.
(A) Hiker is liable for trespass to land.
Why? All elements for trespass to land are met
What are the defenses and privileges to Intentional Torts?
Mnemonic: POPCANS
Privilege- Did D have the privilege to act in the manner they did?
Others- Defense of Others
Property- D can use reasonable force to defend real or personal property. May never use deadly force to protect personal or real property.
Consent- P expressly or impliedly consents to conduct that does not exceed the scope
Authority- arrest or shopkeepers privilege
Necessity- D is permitted to injure P’s property if it is reasonably necessary to avoid a substantially greater harm to the public, self, or D’s property.\
Self Defense- D honestly and reasonably believes that D used reasonable force to prevent P from engaging in an imminent and unprivileged attack
