Intentional Torts

Question 1

Battery

Answer 1

(1) Intent
(2) Contact
(3) harmfulness or offensiveness (of the contact)

Question 2

Intent Defined

Answer 2

(1) The actor desires to cause the consequences of his act or
(2) that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it

Question 3

Contact for Battery

Answer 3

Bodily Harm- any physical impairment of the condition of another’s body, or physical pain or illness

Question 4

Offensiveness

Answer 4

Offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity

Question 5

Assault

Answer 5

(1) Intent
(2) Place the victim in apprehension of a H/O contact
(3) Victim must reasonably be placed in apprehension of such a contact (be aware its occurring)

*Apprehension requires you feel contact will happen to YOU not someone else
*Imminent required

Question 6

What is imminent in Assault

Answer 6

Does not mean Immediate, in the sense of instantaneous contact…. It means no significant delay

Reach the other person almost at once

Question 7

Do “mere words” work in assault

Answer 7

No, words do not make actor liable for assault

UNLESS together with other acts or circumstances

Question 8

False Imprisonment

Answer 8

(1) Intent to confine the other within a limited area
(2) needs to be aware of the confinement OR
(3) suffers bodily harm as a result of the confinement AND
(4) they do not consent to the confined space

A false imprisonment claim requires proof that the defendant did an act that had the intent and result of confining the plaintiff within a limited area. The plaintiff must show that he was either aware of the confinement or harmed by it. Here, the obnoxious drunk customer was aware of the confinement at the time it occurred. The fact that he had no memory of it later does not invalidate his claim.

Question 9

IIED

Answer 9

(1) Extreme and Outrageous conduct
- Utterly intolerable to civilized society
- repetitive
- vulnerable victim

(2) intentionally or recklessly causes

(3) P extreme and severe mental distress
- must have a causal connection b/t d conduct and distress

(4) If Immediate family member present can recover

Question 10

Dual vs single intent

Answer 10

Single- Don’t need to appreciate/ the intent is enough

Dual- must appreciate what you did
- helps insane and dumb people

Insanity is not always a defense, can still appreciate the tort they committed/ crazy choice can be intent still

Question 11

Transfer of Intent Doctrine

Answer 11

Battery, Assault, False Imprisonment (NOT conversion or IIED)

Allows the P to impose liability for an intentional tort on D, even though P could not prove intent of D

(1) Intends to commit a tort against one person but instead commits a different tort against that person

(2) Commits same Tort against different person
- spillage

(3) Commits a different tort against a different person

Question 12

Mistaken identity Doctrine

Answer 12

If D intends to do acts which would constitute a tort, it is no defense that D mistakes, even reasonably, the identity of the property or person he acts upon or believes incorrectly there is a privilege

• Self Defense can be different
• Reasonable belief in self-defense, mistaken identity can be ignored

Question 13

Insanity and Infancy

Answer 13

Neither insanity nor infancy are defenses for intentional torts. (not affirmative defenses)

Mental competency and Age could be relevant factors in determining the subjective intent of D
(maybe “intent” would not be fulfilled however)

• Severity doesn’t matter for intent, if the child wants to cause a harmful act but doesn’t know the severity of the act it is still a battery.

Question 14

Self Defense

Answer 14

Reasonable and Honest belief (fake gun could justify in using self-defense)

D is justified in using force upon another if:

(1) D is not aggressor of the conflict (look to see if he renounced status as aggressor)

(2) D reasonable belief

(3) Only privileged if it is proportional and used to stop an impending battery

(4) only if the harm threatened would have been caused immediately

(Revenge is not privileged)
(Could be found liable for the excessive force used)

Question 15

Duty to Retreat and Deadly Force

Answer 15

(1) There is no duty to retreat before using non-deadly force in self-defense (allowed to stand ground even if 100% u can get away**)

(2) Deadly Force will only be found proportional to a threat of deadly force

Minority:
If defender was not in own home and retreat can be made safely “no deadly force allowed”

Question 16

Defense of Others

Answer 16

D can use reasonable force to protect a 3rd party from the imminent use of unlawful force by another.
- Traditional Limited Privilege Rule- The privilege to protect a 3rd party exists only when the person being defended was privileged to use force

-Modern Restatement
The privilege to use force to protect a 3rd party exists whenever D reasonably believes the person being defended was privileged to use force

Question 17

Exculpatory Clauses

Answer 17

waiver defense to negligence exculpatory clauses are only enforceable when there is specific and clear language and the individual understands what rights he is releasing, the language of this release is clear, and releases are more likely to be upheld where the plaintiff is voluntarily participating in a recreational activity.

Medical Exculpatory agreements are invalid because, sensitive area of public interest

Question 18

Actual Cause/ Cause in Fact/ But For Cause determine

Answer 18

The “but for” test is the basic requirement for the actual cause element of a negligence claim. The plaintiff must prove that the alleged harm would not have occurred but for the defendant’s alleged negligence.

P burden of proof

Question 19

When transferring intent, the rule of extended liability applies when

Answer 19

It is not interrupted through time or other actions. Needs to fall like dominos .

Question 20

Damage collection for Pain and Sufffering

Answer 20

P can only collect damages for pain and suffering when they are conscious.

An unconscious person cannot experience pain and suffering

Question 21

Majority Rule for mistake defense for 3rd person

Answer 21

The rule in most states is that a person can defend others if the person reasonably believes that there is a need to do so, even if that belief is mistaken. That rule would permit a reasonable mistake of fact about the need for force, such as the stranger’s mistake about the need to defend the woman who appeared to be under attack.