Intentional Torts Flashcards
Intent - definition
Restatement § 13(a):
“In order that an act may be done with the intention … the act must be done for
1. the purpose of causing [the tort] … or
2. with knowledge on the part of the actor that … [the tort] is substantially certain to be produced.”
Intent - considerations/notes
○ Mistakes do not negate internet (Ranson v. Kitner)
○ Children and mentally insane or incompetent people may still be found liable for intentional torts, even when incapable of forming a purpose or understanding the consequence of their action. (Wagner v. State, McGuire v. Almy, Garratt v. Dailey)
- Ex: Intent to harm is not necessary, only intent to make contact.
- It is a characteristic that may make it more difficult to prove intent.
- If the person is unaware at all of what they are doing = no intent
- Irrational motivations = intent
○ Transferred intent: Intent can be transferred between targets and torts (assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land or chattels).
- Ex: Throws a rock at A but hits B.
- Ex: Intends to commit arson but commits battery
○ Voluntary intoxication does not invalidate intent.
Battery - elements
Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965) § 13/18.
An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
1. They act intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact AND
2. A harmful/offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.
Battery - considerations/notes
○ Intention to harm/offend is NOT needed, only intent to make conduct is battery. (Wagner v. State)
○ In a crowded world, a certain amount of personal contact is inevitable and must be accepted.
- Consent is assumed to all those ordinary contacts which are customary and reasonably necessary to the common intercourse of life. (Wallace v. Rosen)
○ Harmful/offensive contact with anything connected to the body (extension of body) is actionable. (Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel)
- Ex: Books snatched out of hands. Coat grabbed.
○ Awareness of the contact at the time is not necessary
○ Contact is considered harmful/offensive based on the reasonable person standard.
Assault - elements
An assault can be committed by an actor if
1. They act with the required intent and
2. It creates in the mind of the plaintiff a reasonable apprehension of imminent battery.
Assault - considerations/notes
○ Words themselves, no matter how threatening, do not constitute an assault, but words can give meaning to movement.
○ Imminent - there must be apparent intent and present ability to carry out the battery immediately.
- It is not necessary that the actor have the actual ability to carry out the battery, as long as the plaintiff believes he can.
○ Apprehension of a future battery is not an assault
False Imprisonment - elements
- Defendant intended to confine (proper intent).
- Causes confinement
- The plaintiff was conscious of the confinement OR suffer actual harm.
- The plaintiff did not consent or otherwise privileged.
False Imprisonment - considerations/notes
○ Persuasion to stay doesn’t count.
○ If a way of escape is left open which is reasonable = no FI.
- Unreasonable if its involves exposure of the person
- Crawl through sewer/air vent, swim long distances
○ Length of imprisonment & size of area does not matter.
○ The plaintiff must be conscious of the confinement AT THE TIME
- Does not have to remember the confinement later. (Parvi v. City of Kingston).
○ In addition to physical barriers, FI can be accomplished by force, threat of force, duress, or asserted legal authority. (Hardy v. LaBelle’s Distributing Co.).
- Threats of future action not enough
- Verbal commands unaccompanied by threats or force not enough.
○ Physical restraint/barrier is required (opposed to a moral restraint) for false imprisonment, but this not mean actual force must be used.
- Refusing to provide someone with the means to overcome a physical barrier would count as restraint.
- If there is an exit open that the π doesn’t know about, the ∆ has a duty to inform them.
○ False arrest arises when one is taken into custody by a person who claims but does not have proper legal authority
- Claim for false arrest will not lie if officer has a valid warrant or probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the person who was arrested committed it.
- If lawful imprisonment was unlawfully extended.
Exclusion is never FI
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - elements
- The conduct must be intentional or reckless
- The conduct must be extreme or outrageous
- There must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress
- The emotional distress must be severe.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - considerations/notes
○ Mere insults or general abuse do not rise to the requisite level of outrageousness to allow for recovery for infliction of severe emotional distress.
○ Element d (severe) is frequently characterized as distress so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.
- Note: unlike most torts, the severity of the damage affects not just how much the plaintiff will recover, but whether the plaintiff recovers at all.
- If a ∆ acted with the knowledge of a plaintiff’s extra sensitivity, ∆ will be liable without regard to a reasonable person standard
○ No transferred intent here. Restatement notes that courts generally do not allow recover for bystanders even though it can be shown to be substantially certain to follow.
- May possibly recover if immediate family; or
○ Suffers bodily harm as a result of distress.
Trespass to Land - elements/definition
(1) Intentional & (2) unlawful (3) invasion of another’s land.
Trespass to Land - considerations/notes
• Can also cause trespass to land if:
○ Causes another person or an object to enter the land,
○ Fails to remove something from the land which the defendant is under a duty to remove, or
○ Wrongfully exceeds time, area, or purpose.
- Must be aware that they overstayed their welcome.
• P may sue in trespass only if P is in possession of the land or is entitled to immediate possession or was the last occupier.
○ Tenant would have the right to action
• Mistake (thought it was your land) is not a defense.
• Does not need to be damage. Nominal damages may be awarded alone.
• Does not have to touch the ground
• Boundaries of property extend above and below ground.
○ At least “near” the surface that it’s reasonable.
• Has to be a physical invasion
• Smoke/smell not trespass
Trespass to Chattel - definition/elements
Restatement of the Law of Torts, s. 218:
One who (1) without consensual or other privilege to do so, (2) uses or otherwise intentionally intermeddles with a chattel which is in possession of another (3) is liable for a trespass to such person if:
(a) he dispossesses the other of the chattel or
(b) the chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality or value, or
(c) the possessor is deprived of the use of the chattel for a substantial time, or
(d) bodily harm is thereby caused to the possessor or harm is caused to some person or thing in which the possessor has a legally protected interest.
Trespass to Chattel - considerations/notes
• Unlike trespass to land, trespass to chattel will not lie unless there is actual dispossession or actual damage to the chattel itself.
• If only physical π must prove damages, but if there is dispossession then action lies and no damage is needed to be shown – nominal damages may be awarded alone.
○ Even if there is no damage you could still have a claim/recover if the possessor is deprived of the use for substantial time.
• Wrongful motive not necessary, just the intent to take (mistake)
• Interference by physical contact that damages the chattel’s quality or value can be direct or indirect contact.
• Would want to talk conversion vs trespass chattel on exam
Conversion - definition & factors
An intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may be justly required to pay the other the full value of the chattel.
In determining the seriousness of the interference and the justice of requiring the actor to pay the full value the following factors are important:
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;
5. the harm done to the chattel;
6. the inconvenience and expense caused to the other
