Intentional Torts Flashcards
Transferred Intent
The intent to commit a certain tort against one person is “transferred” to the tort actually commited or to the person actually injured for purposes of establishing a prima facie case.
When does transferred intent apply? Add this subrule
Applies when D intends to commit a tort against one person but instead; commits a different tort against the person; commits intended tort but against a different person; OR commits a different tort against a different person
Which torts does transferred intent work on?
assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land and trespass to chattels
Assault
(1) D intentionally, (2) places P in reasonable apprehension (3) of an immediate or offensive touching (4) with P’s person
False Imprisonment
(1) D intentionally acts or omits to act (2) causing P to be confined to a bounded area with no reasonable means of escape (3) where P is aware of OR is harmed by the confinement
Battery
(1) D intentionally (2) commits a harmful or offensive contact (3) with Ps person
IIED
(1) an intentional or reckless act by D (2) amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct (3) causing severe emotional distress to P
Subrule for (2) Extreme and outrageous conduct
Conduct that transcends all bounds of decency, if not normally outrageous can become so if: (i) continuous in nature, (ii) directed toward a certain P (child, super sensitive if known to D, elderly, pregnant), (iii) committed by a certain D (common carrier, innkeeper)
Bystander cases
If D intentionally causes physical harm to 3P and P, who is outside the zone of danger, suffers severe emotional distress, she may recover by showing prima facie elements of IIED or: (i) she was present when the injury occurred (ii) she is a close relative of the 3P, and (iii) D knew she was present and she was a close relative. **if P is not a close relative, she needs to show physical harm
Intentional Trespass to Land
(1) D commits an act of physical invasion (2) on P’s land (3) D must have an intent to be on Ps land (not an intent to trespass)
Negligent Trespass to Land
(1) D commits an act of physical invasion (due to D’s negligence, recklessness, abnormaly dangerous activity) (2) on Ps land (3) causing damage to Ps Land
Trespass to Chattels
(1) D must intentionally commit (2) an act of interference where the degree of interference is minor (3) with Ps tangible personal property
*Recovery: P can recover cost of repair
Conversion
(1) D must intentionally commit (2) an act of interference where the degree of interference is major (3) with Ps tangible personal property
*Recovery: P can recover full market value at time of conversion
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Consent, self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, shopkeeper’s privilege, defense of necessity, capacity, discipline, privilege of arrest
Consent
P may expressly or impliedly consent to Ds conduct but D must stay within the scope of Ps consent
*Express Consent: D is not liable if P expressly consents to Ds conduct
*Implied Consent: Consent which a reasonable person would infer from custom, usage or Ps conduct
*Consent implied by law: arises when action is necessary to save a persons life or some other important interest in property
Self-defense
D may raise absolute defense of self-defense if: (1) D possessed a reasonable belief - a RB exists when there is apparent necessity not actual necessity. A reasonable mistake is okay. (2) she was or was about to be harmed - there must be immediate danger , and (3) such force was reasonably necessary to protect herself.
Self-defense modern trend
D is under a duty to retreat if (i) she can do so safely, and (ii) there is a reasonable means of escape. UNLESS she is in her home or non-deadly force is being used.
Self-defense initial aggressor
An initial aggressor can’t raise self-defense unless she retreatse and announces her retreat or the victim escalates with deadly force.
Defense of Others
(1) D possessed a reasonable belief - RB exists when there is apparent necessity not actual necessity. (2) that another was being or was about to be harmed (immediate danger), and (3) such force was reasonably necessary to protect that other person
Defense of Property
D may use reasonable force to prevent the commission of a tort against her real or personal property so long as it is not deadly force.
Defense of Property - Recapture of Chattel
The recapture of chattel must be made peacefully. Force may only be used when in hot pursuit. (1) D must make a request to desist or leave, unless this would be futile or dangerous, (2) D may enter wrongdoer’s land to recover chattel if re-taken within a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner
Shopkeeper’s Privilege
Defense to false imprisonment ONLY
Shopkeeper must have the following (GIFT):
(1) Have reasonable Grounds
(2) Must conduct a reasonable investigation
(3) Must use reasonable force, and
(4) Detention must be for a reasonable time
Defense of Necessity
Defense to property tort claims ONLY; trespass to land, conversion, trespass to chattels
Defense of Necessity - Public Necessity
(1) D invades Ps property, (2) in an emergency, (3) to protect the community as a whole or a significant group of people/. This is an absolute privilege no liability for trespass or damage
Defense of Necessity - Private Necessity
(1) D invades Ps property, (2) in an emergency, (3) to protect an interest of his own (ie personal/property safety or security). This is a qualified privilege meaning no liability for trespass, but liable for damages.
Defense - Capacity
Everyone is capable of intent. Incapacity is not a good defense. Thus, young children and persons who are mentally incompetent will be liable for their intentional torts.
Defense - Discipline
A teacher or parent may use reasonable force to discipline a child.
Defense - Privilege of Arrest
*cluster with shopkeeper’s
If D makes an arrest of P, D has the privilege to make the arrest if either: (1) misdemeanor arrest - P was breaching the peace and this happened in front of D, (2) felony arrest by police: (1) D reasonably believed a felony had been committed and (2) D reasonably believed P was the one who did it, and (3) reasonable force was used, and Felony arrrest by non-police: (1) felony must have been committed, and (2) D reasonably believed P committed it, and (3) reasonabel force was used
Negligence
P must make a prima facie case for negligence, by a preponderance of the evidence, that D has a duty to behave according to the appropriate standard of care, D breached that duty, causation, and damages.
Duty
All people have a duty to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to others. Under the Cardozo view, all foreseeable plaintiffs within the zone of danger are owed a duty. Under the Andrews view, D owed a duty to al.
Duty Cont.
Failure to act (omission is a breach), if pre-existing relationship between P & D, there is a duty to act as a reasonably prudent X (whatever that person is) to the P, (3) there’s a duty to rescue when D caused the peril, (4) no duty to prevent a 3P from injuring another UNLESS one has the actual ability and authority to control the 3Ps actions and knows or should know that the 3P is likely to commit acts that require his control
Duty - Standard of care
People are required to act as a reasonably prudent person would act in the same or similar circumstances which is judged objectively. In certain circumstances, an individual has a duty to act according to a higher standard of care.
Superior knowledge standard of care
If D has superior knowledge about a matter relevant to the case then D is held to the higher standard of a reasonably prudent person with that superior knowledge.
Different physical characteristics standard of care
A D with different physical characteristics as an average person is held to that standard of care that a RP with that physical characteristic would exercise.
Child standard of care
a D child is held to that standard of care that a reasonably prudent person of similar age, experience and intelligence acting under similar circumstances would exercise.
*Exception: If a child is engaged in an adult activity, D-child owes a duty to act as a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances.
Professional Standard of Care
D owes that standard of care that the average member of that profession engaged in similar circumstances would give to P.
**lawyers/doctors/specialists: compared to national standard
*doctor: duty to reasonably inform patient of any risks
Landowner standard of care
Trespasser, known trespasser, licensee, inviteesm recreational land users, lessor/lessee
Trespasser
a landowner owes no duty to a trespasser who is an unforeseeable victim
Known trespasser
A landowner has a duty to warn known trespassers about known, concealed, artificial, death traps
Known trespasser and attractive nuisance
(1) D must know of trespassers, (2) D must know trespassers wont/cant appreciate the danger, (3) D must be capable of eliminating the harm, and (4) the cost is outweighed by the benefit
Licensee (social guest)
licensee has landowner’s permission to enter but does not confer any economic benefit on landowner. A landowner has a duty to warn, but not a duty to repair or inspect, a licensee of all concealed, known, artificial and natural dangerous conditions that the invitee is not likely to discover
Recreational Land Users
A landowner who permits the general public to use his land for recreational purposes without charging a fee is not liable for injuries suffered by a recreational user, UNLESS the landowner willfully and maliciously failed to guard against or warn of a dangerous condition or activity.
Invitees
An invitee has the landowners permission to enter and confers an economic benefit. Landowner has a duty to inspect, repair and warn an invitee of artificial and natural dangerous conditions that the invitee is not likely to discover.
Lessor/Lessee
A lessee has a general duty to maintain the premises.
A lessor has a duty to warn of reasonably known existing defects that the lessee is not likely to discover upon reasonable inspection. If lessor promises to repair, eh is liable for unreasonably dangerous conditions. If he volunteers to repair and does so negligently, he is liable.
Breach
A breach occurs when D falls below the standard of care he owes.
Things to put under breach
negligence per se, res ipsa, failure to act
Negligence per se
P may request the court to establish duty and breach through a statute. It would be applicable so long as: (1) the statute clearly defines the standard of conduct, (2) P was in the class of persons the statute was designed to protect, and (3) the statute was designed to protect the type of harm suffered
Res Ipsa Loquitor
“the thing speaks for itself” An inference of negligence may arise when P shows that: (1) the accident that occurred is normally associated with negligence, (2) the accident or injury is normally due to the negligence of someone in Ds position because D had control over the instrumentality that caused the harm, and (3) P must rule out his own action as the cause of his harm
Failure to Act
Omission is a breach
*if there is a preexisting relationship between P & D, there is a duty to act as a reasonably prudent X (whatever that person is) to the P (ie common carrier, employer, employee)
*there’s a duty to rescue when D caused the peril. Standard of care is to rescue reasonably under the circumstances. D doesn’t have to put his own life in peril.
* there is no duty to prevent a 3P from injuring another UNLESS one has the actual ability and authority to control the 3Ps actions and knows or should know that the 3P is likely to commit acts that require the control
Causation
P must establish both actual and proximate causation
Actual cause
But for Ds act or omission, P would not have been injured.
*Substantial factor test: A breach is a substantial factor if it would have been able to cause the injury by itself.
- Merged Causes: Two negligent Ds each breach separately and breaches combine to cause harm
*Unascertainable cause: One breach caused the harm but it is unclear who caused the breach. Each D has a certain percentage of chance that one of them caused the breach. Each D has the burden of proof to show he did not cause the harm.
Proximate Cause
P must show D’s breach created a foreseeable risk of harm and Ps injuries fall within the scope of the foreseeable harm
Proximate cause - eggshell skull plaintiff
P is entitled to recover all the damage he suffers even if surprisingly great in scope (ie D must take P as he finds his P)