Intentional Torts

Question 1

Battery Elements (4)

Answer 1

1. D acted
2. Intending to cause contact with P
3. The contact that D intended was of a harmful and offensive nature
4. D’s act causes P to suffer a contact that is harmful or offensive

Question 2

Battery Cases (8)

Answer 2

1. Vosburg v Putney (intended kick - upheld b/c classroom circumstance)
2. Cole v Hubbard (intended kick but not to hurt - upheld battery)
3. Wagner v State (mentally ill D attacks P - battery b/c RST283)
4. Cecarelli v Maher (harmful contact def - beat and severely injured P and P got awarded damages)
5. Paul v Holbrook (offensive touching - upheld - creepy coworker)
6. Koffman v Garnett (consent defense - middle school football coach)
7. Haesssler v De Loretto (self defense - anticipated attack - necessary force)
8. Katko v Briney (defense recapture property - not permitted excessive force unless life in danger)

Question 3

Battery Restatements

Answer 3

13 - only intent to make contact is necessary for battery

238B - a person with a mental disability is responsible for his own torts

Question 4

Vosburg v. Putney

Answer 4

D intended to kick P but did not intend to harm him - upheld battery claim because it was done in the classroom which is unlawful

Question 5

Cole v. Hibbard

Answer 5

D’s kick met the intent requirement because the contact was intentional - upheld battery

Question 6

Wagner v. State

Answer 6

Mentally ill D attacked P - was battery because RST 283B

Question 7

Cecarelli v. Maher

Answer 7

Harmful contact - beat severely P was awarded damages

Question 8

Paul v. Holbrook

Answer 8

Offensive touching - creepy coworker made offensive suggestions

Question 9

Hoffmann v. Garnett

Answer 9

Defense - Consent
middle school football coach tackled P, battery and negligence NOT assault because contact occurred

Question 10

Haeussler v. De Loretto

Answer 10

Self Defense
Anticipating attack, D hit P
One who is involved in an altercation with another has the right to use such force as is necessary to protect himself from bodily injury, and the question of the amount of force justifiable under the circumstances of a particular case is one for the trier of fact
D used reasonable force

Question 11

Katko v. Britney

Answer 11

Defense - Recapture of Property
P was injured by a spring gun while trying to rob an old, unoccupied farmhouse
Property owners are not permitted to use excessive force, including force calculated to cause death or great bodily harm, to protect their property except to prevent the commission of felonies or violence and where human life is in danger
Prevailed in battery

Question 12

Assault Elements (3)

Answer 12

1. D acts
2. Intending to cause P the apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact with D
3. D’s act reasonably causes P to apprehend such contact

Question 13

Assault Cases (3)

Answer 13

1. Beach v Hancock (unloaded gun - assault)
2. Booker v Shiverhorne (threat over phone - not assault b/c future intent)
3. Vetter v Morgan (women at stoplight - was assault b/c D had ability to harm)

Question 14

Assault Restatement

Answer 14

31 - Words do not usually constitute an assault but if together with other acts or circumstances they put the other in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact they can constitute an assault.

Question 15

Beach v. Hancock

Answer 15

D pointed an unloaded gun at P and clicked it twice - was assault because P was reasonable in believing it would’ve been loaded

Question 16

Booker v. Shiverhorne

Answer 16

D told P phone operator “If I were there I’d break your neck” - was not an assault because it was a threat that gave time to get away / they were not there

Question 17

Vetter v. Morgan

Answer 17

P was a women in her car at a stoplight alone at night. D in the car next to her engaged in threatening language, behavior, and driving - was assault because defendant had the ability to harm her

Question 18

False Imprisonment Elements (4)

Answer 18

1. D acted
2. D intended to confine P
3. D’s act confined P
4. P was aware that she was confined

Question 19

False Imprisonment Cases (3)

Answer 19

1. Fotjik v Charter Medical (man hospitalized for alcoholism - was not FI bc nothing shows he didn’t have ability to leave
2. Grant v StopNGo (Affirmative Defense - Consent / Lawful confinement) P accused of shoplifting claims FI - shopkeepers privilege)
3. Dillard v. Silva (1 hour was not unreasonably long - was unreasonable manner of detention for other reasons)

Question 20

False Imprisonment Restatement

Answer 20

35 - Elements

Question 21

Fotjik v. Charter Medical

Answer 21

41 y/o man hospitalized for alcoholism where threats to take him in handcuffs if he didn’t go - none of the factors that are sufficient to overcome the plaintiff’s free will are present - there is nothing that shows in the situation or in his ability to deal with it that he could not have insisted on leaving - not false imprisonment

Question 22

Grant v. Stop-N-Go

Answer 22

(Affirmative Defense - Consent/Lawful Confinement)
Question of fact as to whether P, who had been accused of shoplifting, felt he could not leave while waiting for the police to arrive, was confined - Q of fact to whether he consented - whether shopkeepers privilege applies depends on fact of reasonable amount of time confined

Question 23

Dillard v. Silva

Answer 23

P was confined for a time that was not unreasonably long but D was found detention was unreasonable manner for other reasons

Question 24

IIED Elements (3)

Answer 24

1. D acts intentionally toward P
2. D’s action was of extreme and outrageous sort
3. P suffered severe emotional or mental distress

Question 25

IIED Cases (4)

Answer 25

1. Dickens v. Puryear (P had sex with D’s daughter, after battery&assault threatened to kill him if he didn’t leave state)
2. State Rubbish Collectors v. Silzinoff (D counterclaimed for assault b/c P threatened to beat him and ruin his truck - was actionable)
3. Littlefield v. McGuffy (long time race based threatening phone calls - was IIED)
4. Hunt v. State (kid interrogated after falsely accused of stealing dollar from autistic kid - whether outrageous question for jury)

Question 26

IIED Restatements

Answer 26

46 - Elements

Question 27

Dickens v. Puryear

Answer 27

P 31 y/o had sex with D’s young daughter, following D’s battery and assault threatened to kill him if he didn’t leave the state, was IIED b/c can’t be assault b/c not immediate

Question 28

State Rubbish Collectors v. Silzinoff

Answer 28

P threatened to beat D and destroy truck if didn’t pay tribute so D counterclaimed assault - court ruled that although the P did not assault D, D established a valid tort claim because P’s “intentionally subjected him to the mental suffering incident to serious threats to his physical well-being.” - IIED

Question 29

Littlefield v. McGuffy

Answer 29

D engaged in long-term, race-based, series of hateful phone calls, messages, actions to P - constituted IIED

Question 30

Hunt v. State

Answer 30

Hunt (kid) in classroom interrogated for falsely accusing him of stealing dollar from kid with autism - “Outrageous” behavior is “conduct that exceeds the bounds of decency and is regarded as intolerable in a civilized community.” - question of jury if outrageous

Question 31

Shopkeepers Privilege

Answer 31

The shopkeeper’s privilege applies if:
(a) there was a reasonable belief that a person has stolen or has threatened to steal;
(b) the detention was for a reasonable time; and
(c) the detention was in a reasonable manner.