Intentional Torts

Question 2

8.3%

Define “battery”

Answer 2

Intentionally causing the harmful or offensive contact of another or anything connected to them

Question 3

8.3%

Can you be liable for battery accidentally?

Answer 3

No, need intent to commit the act (but not intent to cause the harm, necessarily).

Question 4

What are the elements of assault?

Answer 4

An assault occurs when the defendant:
Causes or is a substantial factor in bringing about;
Reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff;

Of imminent harmful or offensive bodily contact to the plaintiff’s person; AND

Has specific or general intent

Question 5

8.3%

What are the elements of battery?

Answer 5

A battery occurs when the defendant:

1. Causes or is a substantial factor in bringing about;
2. Harmful or offensive contact;
   Harmful Contact. Contact is harmful when it causes injury, pain, or illness.
   Offensive Contact. Contact is offensive when a person of ordinary sensibility would find the contact offensive (e.g., spitting on someone).
3. To the plaintiff’s person; AND
   The plaintiff’s person includes anything connected to the plaintiff (e.g., kicking someone’s cane out from under them)
4. Has** specific or general intent **

Question 6

As to assault, what is required for reasonable apprehension?

Answer 6

Bodily contact is NOT required for an assault, only a reasonable apprehension of such contact.
The plaintiff MUST be aware of the defendant’s actions in order to have reasonable apprehension (e.g., a plaintiff cannot have reasonable apprehension of harmful or offensive contact if she is unconscious).
Generally, mere words do NOT constitute an assault.

Question 7

What is required for imminent harmful or offensive bodily contact for assault?

Answer 7

The plaintiff must be apprehensive that she is about to become the victim of an immediate battery. There cannot be a significant delay (e.g., threats of future harm are not sufficient).

Question 8

What is the key to trespass to chattels?

Answer 8

You’re eventually going to get your stuff back, so D will only pay for damages of what happened while I had the chattel

You don’t owe for the whole price of chattels

Question 9

What are the elements of trespass to chattel?

Answer 9

A trespass to chattels occurs when the defendant:
Causes or is a substantial factor in bringing about;
An interference with the plaintiff’s right of possession in a chattel; AND
Has specific or general intent (See Page 1 in Torts for explanation of intent).

Question 10

For trespass to chattels, what are the types of interference?

Answer 10

Interference by Intermeddling. Intermeddling occurs when the defendant directly damages the chattel.
Interference by Dispossession. Dispossession occurs when the defendant deprives the plaintiff of his lawful right of possession of the chattel.

Question 11

What is key to conversion?

Answer 11

The property is converted to the D and is lost, gone, destroyed, and P will never get it back (unlike trespass to chattels)

Question 12

Elements of conversion?

Answer 12

A conversion occurs when the defendant:

1. Causes or is a substantial factor in bringing about;
2. An interference with the plaintiff’s right of possession in a chattel;
3. Where the interference is so serious, it deprives the plaintiff entirely of the use of the chattel; AND
   Unlike trespass to chattels, the interference MUST be so serious; it
   warrants requiring the defendant to pay the chattel’s full value.
4. Has specific or general intent.*

Question 13

Do you have to have intent to destroy forever, some evil intent, for conversion?

Answer 13

No, the taking just must be intentional. And then something bad (if unintentional) happens while in D’s possession to warrant D having to pay full value. DO NO THAVE TO INTEND TO KEEP.

Question 14

What are the elements of trespass to land?

Answer 14

A trespass to land occurs when the defendant:

1. Causes or is a substantial factor in bringing about;
2. A physical invasion of the plaintiff’s real property; AND
   The invasion may be by a person or an object (e.g., throwing a rock on
   another’s land).
3. Has specific or general intent.
   The defendant need only intend to enter the land or cause the physical Invasion (i.e., its irrelevant whether the defendant believed the land belonged to him – mistake of fact is not a defense to trespass).

Question 15

For trespass, do you have to damage the land or know who’s land it is?

Answer 15

No. Just have to do the intentional act of walking onto someone else’s property. No damage necessary.

Question 16

Intentional infliction of emotional distress occurs when the defendant:

Answer 16

1. Acts with extreme or outrageous conduct;
   Conduct is considered extreme or outrageous if a reasonable person would regard the conduct as intolerable in a civilized society.
2. Which causes or is a substantial factor in bringing about;
3. Severe emotional distress; AND
4. Has intent to cause severe emotional distress OR acts with recklessness (for torts, includes malicious, knew or should have known) as to the risk of causing severe emotional distress.
   Unlike other intentional torts, reckless conduct will satisfy the intent requirement. However, transferred intent does NOT apply to IIED.

Question 17

Is physical harm required for IIED?

Answer 17

No. Just severe emotional distress

Question 18

Does transfered intent apply to EEID?

Answer 18

No, transferred intent does not apply to IIED.

Question 19

What is required for the bystander rule?

Answer 19

Needs to be three parties. One person doing something to someone else, and a third person who sees it.

Question 20

What is the bystander rule?

Answer 20

Scenario 1

Bystanders can bring claim for IIED if:

bystander is close family relative of potential victim;
D knows that person is there watching; AND
bystander suffers emotional distress

if family relation is on the fence as to closeness, they’re testing you on close family relative and the answer choice will say “best argument for them to prevail is because they are close family relative” or “if he loses, it’s likely because not a close family relative”
you won’t have to litigate the facts, it’ll be set up for you

Question 21

What is the bystander rule?

Answer 21

Scenario 2

Bystander is not a close family relation;
but they suffer physical harm

Question 22

A false imprisonment occurs when the defendant:

Answer 22

1. Causes or is a substantial factor in bringing about;
   The defendant may cause confinement of the plaintiff through the use of physical barriers, force, threats, invalid use of authority, duress, or failure to provide a safe means of escape.
2. The confinement of the plaintiff within fixed boundaries; AND
   Confinement within fixed boundaries exists when the plaintiff’s movement is limited in all directions, such that there is no reasonable means of escape known to the plaintiff.
   The plaintiff MUST be aware of the confinement or be harmed by it.
3. Has specific or general intent

Question 23

What is the shopkeeper’s privilege to false imprisonment?

Answer 23

A shopkeeper can detain a suspected shoplifter so long as the detainment is reasonable in both time and manner.

Question 24

What is the consent defense to intentional torts?

Answer 24

The plaintiff’s consent to the defendant’s conduct is a defense to intentional torts (not crimes), provided that:
The consent was valid (e.g., no fraud, incapacity, etc.); AND
The defendant’s conduct remained within the boundaries of the plaintiff’s
consent (e.g., cannot use a knife in a boxing match).

Question 25

Does consent have to be express?

Answer 25

No, the plaintiff’s consent may be express or implied through words or conduct.

eg, in pickup basketball, some elbowing may happen and if you’re playing, there’s implied consent.
Note, that if another’s aggression goes beyond the implied consent, then consent is not a defense for them.

Question 26

For self-defense and defense to others, A defendant is NOT liable for harm to the plaintiff if:

Answer 26

The defendant reasonably believed that that the plaintiff was going to harm him or another; AND
The defendant used only the amount of force that was reasonably necessary
and proportionate to protect himself or another.

Question 27

Is reasonable mistake okay when acting in self-defense or defense of another?

Answer 27

A reasonable mistake as to the existence of danger to the defendant or the person the defendant is attempting to protect is allowed. But the mistake has to be reasonable, not merely genuine. (landowner believes he has a gun, but no reasonable facts to tell us he had a gun much less about to use it to cause death or GBH…landowner not justified in deadly force.)

Question 28

For self-defense, what if D is initial aggressor?

Answer 28

The defendant is NOT permitted to claim self-defense if the defendant was the initial aggressor, unless the other party responded to nondeadly force with deadly force.

Question 29

Can you use self-defense for your property?

Answer 29

A defendant may use reasonable force if he believes it is reasonably necessary to prevent tortious harm to his property. However, deadly force cannot be used to prevent harm to property.

Can never use deadly force, unless F’s tell you the D is in threat of grave bodily harm or death.

Question 30

What is the private necessity defense?

Answer 30

Private Necessity. A necessity defense is private when the defendant’s act is done to benefit a limited number of people. Under private necessity, the defendant MUST pay for the actual damages that he caused. However, the landowner may NOT use force to exclude the defendant (a landowner may usually use reasonable force to exclude a trespasser)

eg, crash landing in plane on someone’s property; this is OK, but must pay for damage done.

Question 31

What is the public necessity defense?

Answer 31

Public Necessity. A necessity defense is public when the defendant’s act is done for the public good. Under public necessity, the defendant is NOT liable for property damage that he caused.

Question 32

What is the necessity defense?

Answer 32

The defense of necessity is available to a defendant that enters onto the plaintiff’s land or interferes with the plaintiff’s personal property, provided that the defendant does so to prevent an injury or some other severe harm.

Question 33

MBE Tip Never apply a defense to a tort in the answer unless

Answer 33

they ask you about the defense in the question.

Do not litigate and come up with Facts.

Question 34

One form of conversion occurs when a person is initially legitimately in possession of the chattel, but then…

Answer 34

…but then unjustifiably refuses to return it upon rightful demand by the owner.

Question 35

Do I have privilege of necessity to prevent serious harm to my chattels, or just my person?

Answer 35

a person has the privilege of “private necessity” to enter another’s land, if that entry is or reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent serious harm to the person or his chattels.

So, if threatened with flooding on a roadway, i have privilege of necessity to pull my car onto a private driveway (but liable for any damages i cause in doing so; which is why it’s known as an “incomplete privilege”)

Question 36

So if someone parks their car on my land out of private necessity to avoid damage to their car during a rainstorm, for instance, can I remove the car?

Answer 36

No. I have a duty to allow the entry to continue until the danger (the rainstorm) has passed. If there through private necessity, they are entitled to be on the land. So if I remove the car and the car suffers damage during the rainstorm, I, the landowner, am responsible for the damages to the car owner.

Question 37

For MBE questions on conversion, if the property is taken without intent to keep, but then it “breaks” while in the D’s possession, is this conversion?

Answer 37

Yes. Even if intended to return, when they say it “breaks” such as the neighbor who borrowed the chainsaw with intent to return but then it broke…then at this point it becomes converted and neighbor can keep chainsaw but has to pay value of chainsaw when he took it.

Note they didn’t say “broke beyond repair” in F’s, they just said “broke,” and you’re to infer that this amounted to conversion… sneaky one. but now ya know.

Question 38

So if I put up stock as a security and it’s worth $1k, then pay off my loan and am owed the stock back, which is now worth $2k, but the bank makes a mistake and doesn’t return it for unreasonable period, like two months, at which point it’s worth $500, how much am I owed?

Answer 38

The value of the stock at the point it was converted, which was $2k, when they refused to return it. if they just needed a couple days to process the paperwork, that’s reasonable, but two months is not, and would constitute conversion, meaning they had taken it at that point and owed it and i’m not forced to take it back when they discover the mistake, i’m allowed to refuse and sue for the $2k.

Question 39

Where the only injury or physical damage from the defendant’s negligence is property damage, will courts allow P to recover for Emotional Distress?

Answer 39

… are unwilling to allow the plaintiff to recover for emotional distress at the property damage. (Courts fear inflated claims and liability without a natural stopping point.) Since the restaurateur’s distress is due to the property damage (not, say, due to the restaurateur’s nearly being burned in the negligently caused fire), this rule applies here to deprive the restaurateur of recovery for the distress.

eg, F’s above come from MBE question about fire and damages awarded to restaurant owner for emotion distress incident to negligently caused propertly loss. This was improper, as courts do not allow for this. Must meet elements above (as this scenario would not be in zone of danger, bystander, or special relationship NEID).

Question 40

For defense of another, can i push person out of way to protect from speeding automobile?

Answer 40

Yes, if person was actually in danger.

If however, person not actually in danger and i should have realized that, then that person can sue me for battery.

Question 41

When an owner uses an automatic mechanical device to protect against intruders…

Answer 41

…, the situation is judged by the same standards as if the owner were personally applying the force. Therefore, the mechanical device can supply deadly force (force likely to cause death or serious bodily injury) only if the owner could do so personally on the particular occasion in question. An owner could use such deadly force only if the owner reasonably feared, in that particular situation, that the intruder posed a risk of death or serious bodily harm to the owner or other inhabitants.

Question 42

eg, if salesman came onto property, even if he had been told no trespassing and was an unknown trespasser, if landmines cause him serious injury, then…

Answer 42

… landowner not justified in using deadly force. While a reasonable mistake is OK, it has to be against a person on a particular ocassion, not just a mechanical device set up on the land against anyone. This is true even if homeowner reasonably fears that intruders would come and harm him or his family.

Question 43

Is there an implied consent just by venturing out into daily life?

Answer 43

Yes, not liable for battery when acting reasoning and withinordinary social norms privileging such contact.

eg, if i tap you to let you know you dropped your purse, i am not liable for battery.

Question 44

Transferred intent aka extended liability

Answer 44

Applies to:

intentional torts of assault, battery, false imprisonment, tresspass to land, and tresspass to chattels

D is liable when D intends to commit an intentional tort against a person but instead comitts:

1. a different intentional tort against the SAME person
2. the same intentional tort against a different person; OR
3. a different intentional tort against a different person

EG (for number 1), guy meant for dog to scare the wife, but dog breaks lose and bites her, can he be held liable for battery?
Yes, even though he only intended to commit assault, can be held liable for battery through transferred intent