Intentional Torts Flashcards
Battery Elements (4)
- D acted
- Intending to cause contact with P
- The contact that D intended was of a harmful and offensive nature
- D’s act causes P to suffer a contact that is harmful or offensive
Battery Cases (8)
- Vosburg v Putney (intended kick - upheld b/c classroom circumstance)
- Cole v Hubbard (intended kick but not to hurt - upheld battery)
- Wagner v State (mentally ill D attacks P - battery b/c RST283)
- Cecarelli v Maher (harmful contact def - beat and severely injured P and P got awarded damages)
- Paul v Holbrook (offensive touching - upheld - creepy coworker)
- Koffman v Garnett (consent defense - middle school football coach)
- Haesssler v De Loretto (self defense - anticipated attack - necessary force)
- Katko v Briney (defense recapture property - not permitted excessive force unless life in danger)
Battery Restatements
13 - only intent to make contact is necessary for battery
238B - a person with a mental disability is responsible for his own torts
Vosburg v. Putney
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
Cole v. Hibbard
D’s kick met the intent requirement because the contact was intentional - upheld battery
Wagner v. State
Mentally ill D attacked P - was battery because RST 283B
Cecarelli v. Maher
Harmful contact - beat severely P was awarded damages
Paul v. Holbrook
Offensive touching - creepy coworker made offensive suggestions
Hoffmann v. Garnett
Defense - Consent
middle school football coach tackled P, battery and negligence NOT assault because contact occurred
Haeussler v. De Loretto
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
Katko v. Britney
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
Assault Elements (3)
- D acts
- Intending to cause P the apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact with D
- D’s act reasonably causes P to apprehend such contact
Assault Cases (3)
- Beach v Hancock (unloaded gun - assault)
- Booker v Shiverhorne (threat over phone - not assault b/c future intent)
- Vetter v Morgan (women at stoplight - was assault b/c D had ability to harm)
Assault Restatement
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.
Beach v. Hancock
D pointed an unloaded gun at P and clicked it twice - was assault because P was reasonable in believing it would’ve been loaded
Booker v. Shiverhorne
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
Vetter v. Morgan
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
False Imprisonment Elements (4)
- D acted
- D intended to confine P
- D’s act confined P
- P was aware that she was confined
False Imprisonment Cases (3)
- Fotjik v Charter Medical (man hospitalized for alcoholism - was not FI bc nothing shows he didn’t have ability to leave
- Grant v StopNGo (Affirmative Defense - Consent / Lawful confinement) P accused of shoplifting claims FI - shopkeepers privilege)
- Dillard v. Silva (1 hour was not unreasonably long - was unreasonable manner of detention for other reasons)
False Imprisonment Restatement
35 - Elements
Fotjik v. Charter Medical
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
Grant v. Stop-N-Go
(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
Dillard v. Silva
P was confined for a time that was not unreasonably long but D was found detention was unreasonable manner for other reasons
IIED Elements (3)
- D acts intentionally toward P
- D’s action was of extreme and outrageous sort
- P suffered severe emotional or mental distress
IIED Cases (4)
- Dickens v. Puryear (P had sex with D’s daughter, after battery&assault threatened to kill him if he didn’t leave state)
- State Rubbish Collectors v. Silzinoff (D counterclaimed for assault b/c P threatened to beat him and ruin his truck - was actionable)
- Littlefield v. McGuffy (long time race based threatening phone calls - was IIED)
- Hunt v. State (kid interrogated after falsely accused of stealing dollar from autistic kid - whether outrageous question for jury)
IIED Restatements
46 - Elements
Dickens v. Puryear
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
State Rubbish Collectors v. Silzinoff
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
Littlefield v. McGuffy
D engaged in long-term, race-based, series of hateful phone calls, messages, actions to P - constituted IIED
Hunt v. State
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
Shopkeepers Privilege
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.
