Intentional torts Flashcards
All Torts Have 2 Things in Common
- ACT
- Intent
ACT
an external manifestation of the will or Non reflexive muscular movement
SEE POLMATIER v RUSS.
Intent
Desire a consequence or belief that a consequence is substantially certain. - SUBJECTIVE
2 types of intent
Simple intent
Dual intent
Simple intent
Intended contact - intent of harm not necessary, intent of ACT of contact will suffice SEE WATERS v BLACKSHEAR (firecracker), ANDREWS v PETERS (knee buckle)
Dual intent
Intended contact AND intended some harm or offense.
Transfer of Intent
defendant intends to harm one victim, but then unintentionally harms a second victim instead SEE HALL v. MCBRIDE (boys in the hood)
Battery
(a) he acts 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
(b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results; or
(c) an offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.
Unintended consequences are still consequences. SEE NELSON v. RUSS — (gun just goes off) or ANDREWS V. PETERS (knee buckle)
Assault
An actor is subject to liability to another for assault if
1) he acts 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) the other is thereby put in such IMMINENT apprehension.
Must be imminent, now, immediate—SEE CULLISON v. MEDLEY (Creepy Guy)
False Imprisonment
1) Intended to confine or
2) Knew with substantial certainty victim would be confined
3) Person is held within certain limits with no means of reasonable escape or reasonable alternate exit
4) Use of force is threatened if escape is tried
5) Person must be aware / Conscious of confinement or suffer harm
Shopkeepers Privilege
A shopkeeper with probable cause has limited privilege to detain for investigation
(a) Have probable cause
(b) Must detain with in the scope of the privilege.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Intentional or reckless infliction, by extreme and outrageous conduct of severe emotional or mental distress even in the absence of physical harm
(1) Desires to cause emotional distress,
(2) Knows with substantial certainty that person with suffer emotional distress
Extreme and Outrageous
(1) Mere insults not enough
(2) Abuse of actual or apparent authority more likely outrageous
(3) Actor’s knowledge of sensitivity a factor
(4) Course of conduct more likely to be proven versus single incident
Defenses to Assault and Battery
1) Consent
2) Defense of Self and Others
3) Defense of Land and Personal Property
Consent
a) Consent is an affirmative defense,
b) Consent and withdrawal of consent can be expressed or implied, Standard for implied consent or withdrawal of consent is the reasonableness test. SEE MCQUIGGAN v. BOY SCOUTS (paperclip)
Defense of Self and Others
a) Must be in imminent apprehension of harmful contact.
b) The degree of force used must be proportional to the degree necessary to curtail the danger or harm.
SEE SLAYTON v. MCDONALD (buckshot)
c) The degree of force used in defense of others must be proportional to the degree necessary to protect the person defending.
SEE YOUNG v. WARREN (shot in the back)
Defense of Land and Personal Property
a) Must be in imminent apprehension of land or property being harmed or taken.
SEE WOODARD v. TURNIPSEED (timeclock)
b) The degree of force used must be proportional to the degree necessary to curtail the danger or harm.
- ACT
- Intent
All Torts Have 2 Things in Common
an external manifestation of the will or Non reflexive muscular movement
SEE POLMATIER v RUSS.
Act
Desire a consequence or belief that a consequence is substantially certain. - SUBJECTIVE
Intent
Simple intent
Dual intent
2 types of intent
Intended contact - intent of harm not necessary, intent of ACT of contact will suffice SEE WATERS v BLACKSHEAR (firecracker), ANDREWS v PETERS (knee buckle)
Simple intent
Intended contact AND intended some harm or offense.
Dual intent
defendant intends to harm one victim, but then unintentionally harms a second victim instead SEE HALL v. MCBRIDE (boys in the hood)
Transfer of Intent
