Intentional torts

Question 1

Prima Facie (“at first sight”) Case

Answer 1

•Element (1): A (volitional/voluntary) Act
•Element (2): Intent (General or Specific) to produce a injury [injury will vary, depending on tort]
•Element (3): The act is the substantial Cause …
•Element (4): … of an Injury

• Burden of proof on Plaintiff
• “Affirmative defenses”

Question 2

What is “Intent”?

Answer 2

1. done on purpose; deliberate
2. by conscious design or purpose
3. performed with purpose

Question 3

What does intent require?

Answer 3

Holding: Intent requires no showing of malice, intent to injure, or other bad motive. It requires only a volitional act (the moving of the chair) performed with knowledge such that there is
“substantial certainty” that the result (in this case bodily contact that is harmful or offensive)
will occur.

Question 4

How is one liable for the intentional tort of battery?

Answer 4

In order to liable for the intentional tort of battery, defendant must have intended contact that was offensive or harmful, not to have intended offense or harm

Question 5

Can “Good faith” and “mistake” negate intent?

Answer 5

“Good faith” and “mistake” do not negate intent.

Question 6

Does mental illness negate intent?

Answer 6

Mental illness does not negate intent.

Question 7

How does the doctrine of transferred intent work? Which torts apply?

Answer 7

The doctrine of transferred intent permits plaintiff to prove intent by proving that defendant intended to commit any one of five intentional torts (assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to property, and trespass to chattel) and accomplishing any of those five intentional torts.

Question 8

What does intent of battery require?

Answer 8

Battery requires intentional touching in a harmful or offensive manner.

Question 9

Can the touching element of battery be satisfied by contact with connected to the body items?

Answer 9

The “touching” element of battery may be satisfied by contact with items that are so connected with the body as to be customarily regarded as part of the other person’s.

Question 10

Battery

Answer 10

• (1): A (volitional) act.
• (2): Intent (single intent jurisdiction) to
• (a) make harmful or offensive contact, or
• (b) cause apprehension that such contact is imminent. Only in transferred doctrine. [SUBJECTIVE]
• (3): The act is a substantial cause (directly or indirectly) of contact that is
• Harmful (i.e., any physical impairment, pain, or illness) or
• Offensive (i.e., would offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity). [OBJECTIVE]

Question 11

Sufficient Contact for Battery

Answer 11

•Defendant’s body part makes contact with Plaintiff (or something attached to or intimately connected with Plaintiff) (direct)
•Anything held by or attached to Defendant makes contact with Plaintiff (direct)
•Defendant causes a substance (e.g., water, dirt) to make contact with Plaintiff (indirect)
•Defendant causes Plaintiff to come into contact with a harmful/offensive substance (e.g., poisoned food) (remote indirect)

Question 12

The course of a Torts Case

Answer 12

• (1) Plaintiff files complaint (or “petition”) and “serves process” on Defendant
• (2) Defendant files answer (with defenses) or may file a motion to dismiss (MTD)
• Judge rules on MTD, if applicable
• (3) Discovery Process (both parties)
• (4) Motion(s) for summary judgment
• Judge rules on MSJ, if applicable
• (5) Trial
• Pre-trial motions (e.g., in limine)
• Plaintiff presents case to jury (or judge?)
• Evidentiary motions during trial
• Plaintiff has burden of proof (preponderance)
• Motion(s) for a “directed verdict”
• Defendant presents evidence
• Jury instructions (if applicable)
• Verdict and judgment

Question 13

Assault Prima Facie Case

Answer 13

• (1): A (volitional) act.
• (2): Intent to produce apprehension of imminent harmful/offensive contact (also, transfer intent from failed battery).
[Subjective]
[Knowledge or substantial certainty that apprehension will result is enough]
• (3): Act is substantial cause (direct/indirect) of Plaintiff being placed in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. [Objective & Subjective]

Question 14

Restatement (Second) of Torts
§ 24, Comment a: ASSAULT

Answer 14

“[I]f the actor, believing a revolver to be loaded, points it at another and threatens to shoot him, the actor is not liable … if the other believes that the revolver is unloaded.”

Question 15

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 22

Answer 15

“An attempt to inflict a harmful or offensive contact or to cause an apprehension of such contact does not make the actor liable for an assault if the other does not become aware of the attempt before it is terminated.”

Question 16

Can a Plaintiff recover for assault even if “no harm was done?”

Answer 16

Yes

Question 17

How is apprehension different than fear?
Ask tort teacher on this

Answer 17

fearful implies often a timorous or worrying temperament. apprehensive suggests a state of mind and implies a premonition of evil or danger.

Question 18

Does the Plaintiff have to demonstrate that defendant had the apparent ability to bring about harmful or offensive contact?

Answer 18

Yea Plaintiff must demonstrate that defendant had the apparent ability to bring about harmful or offensive contact.

Question 19

False Imprisonment

Answer 19

• (1): A (volitional) act.
• (2): Intent to confine. [SUBJECTIVE]
• (3): Act is substantial cause (direct/ indirect) of Plaintiff being confined (i.e., forced to stay against will). [OBJECTIVE]
• (4): The Plaintiff is conscious of the confinement or harmed by it.

Question 20

What is False Imprisonment?

Answer 20

False imprisonment is unlawful restraint, through force or threat of force, that confines someone to a bounded area.

Question 21

Escape: The Restatement View

Answer 21

“TIlt is unreasonable … to refuse to utilize a means of escape of which he is himself aware merely because it entails a slight inconvenience or requires him to commit a technical invasion of another’s possessory interest in land or chattels which subiects him at most to the risk of an action for nominal damages which in practice is seldom if ever brought.”
- Restatement (Second) of Torts § 36, Comment a

Question 22

Examples of Confinement Methods of Sufficient “Force” to Cause Confinement

Answer 22

• Physical Barriers
• Physical Force
• Direct Threats of Force
• Indirect Threats of Force
• Threats Conditioned on Property Loss
• Failure to Provide Means of Escape
• Invalid Use of Legal Authority

Question 23

Is awareness of confinement always an essential element of the cause of action?

Answer 23

In some jurisdictions, awareness of confinement is an essential element of the cause of action. Other jurisdictions and the Second Restatement take the position that awareness or physical harm is sufficient.

Question 24

What is moral persuasion does it constitute force or threat of force?

Answer 24

“Moral persuasion” is not enough to constitute force or threat of force. Plaintiff was free to leave and instead chose to stay to clear her name.

Question 25

Is conviction of the crime for which one is arrested a defense to a false arrest claim?

Answer 25

Yes Conviction of the crime for which one is arrested is a defense to a false arrest claim.

Question 26

Can False imprisonment occur if defendant, who doesn’t have a duty to do so, provides plaintiff with no a means of leaving after she had voluntarily entered.

Answer 26

No only False imprisonment may occur only if defendant, who has a duty to do so, does not provide plaintiff with a means of leaving after she had voluntarily entered.

Question 27

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Answer 27

•(1): A (volitional) act. •(2): Act is “extreme and outrageous conduct”; [OBJECTIVE] •(3): Intent or RECKLESSNESS to cause severe emotional distress. [SUBJ.] •(4): Act is a substantial cause of actual damage (i.e., severe emotional distress) (minority rule also requires a physical manifestation)

Question 28

When is IIED available?

Answer 28

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is available as a separate tort if a party’s outrageous conduct results in severe emotional distress.

Question 29

Does mere emotional distress qualify for IIED?

Answer 29

Conduct must be so outrageous that the RSBL person would be caused “severe” emotional distress, not “mere” emotional distress.

Question 30

Outrageous Conduct in Context

Answer 30

In some contexts, the threshold for outrageous conduct is lower: •Misuse of authority •Known special sensitivities •Common carriers and innkeepers •Children, infirm, elderly, pregnant

Question 31

In order to recover for emotional distress damages what must a plaintiff show?

Answer 31

In order to recover for emotional distress damages, plaintiff must show either that defendants intended to cause emotional distress to her (that is, the battery was committed so that she would be distressed) (specific intent) or that defendants knew that severe emotional distress was substantially certain to be produced by their conduct (general intent.)

Question 32

Trespass to Land

Answer 32

• (1): A (volitional) act of physical invasion onto real property in the possession of another. • (2): Intent (a) to enter (or remain), or (b) to cause a person or tangible thing to enter (or remain). [SUBJECTIVE] [Knowledge/substantial certainty still enough] • (3): The act is a substantial cause (directly or indirectly) of physical invasion of real property in possession of another. [OBJECTIVE]

Question 33

Does a Plaintiff have an exclusive right to possess the land extends above (and below) it?

Answer 33

Yes Plaintiff’s exclusive right to possess the land extends above (and below) it.

Question 34

Will trespass action lie if the D entered the land with permission but then overstayed the duration of the permission?

Answer 34

Yes Trespass action will lie if the D entered the land with permission but then overstayed the duration of the permission.

Question 35

Trespass to Chattels

Answer 35

• (1): Volitional act of interference with the right of possession of another in personal property. • (2): Intent to perform the act of interference. [SUBJECTIVE] [Knowledge/substantial certainty still enough] • (3): The act is a substantial cause (directly or indirectly) of interference in the right of possession of another's personal property (i.e., "intermeddling" [i.e., damage] or dispossession). [OBJECTIVE] • (4) Damages (includes total loss of possession).

Question 36

What harm does Trespass to Chattels require?

Answer 36

An action for trespass to chattels requires either some harm to the chattel or that the P was dispossessed of it for a long enough period of time that he dispossession is a damage. Unlike assault, battery, and trespass to land, most jurisdictions would not recognize an entitlement to nominal damages.

Question 37

How are the actual damages requirement for trespass to chattel satisfied?

Answer 37

The actual damages requirement for trespass to chattel may be satisfied by intermeddling with the chattel in a way that interferes with possessor’s business. Electronic signals generated and sent by computer are sufficiently physically tangible to support a trespass cause of action.

Question 38

Conversion

Answer 38

• (1): Volitional act of dominion and control that interferes with the right of possession of another in physical personal property. [Not accidental acts, unless using chattel without permission]. • (2): Intent to perform the act that interferes with possession. [SUBJECTIVE] [Knowledge/substantial certainty still enough] • (3): The act is a substantial cause (directly or indirectly) of an interference so serious it impacts the other's right of control and justifies requiring paying the full value of the chattel. [OBJECTIVE]

Question 39

Is False Arrest probable cause?

Answer 39

“A claim for false arrest will not lie if an 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.”

Question 40

How can conversion take place?

Answer 40

• Stealing it • Transferring it • Refusing to give it back • Substantially changing it • Destroying it • Misusing it

Question 41

Is volitional act one controlled of mind?

Answer 41

Yes. During an epileptic attack striking someone is not a volitional act.