Intentional Torts

Question 1

Assault

Answer 1

• An intentional, unlawful threat to cause bodily injury to another by force;
• Under circumstances that create a well-founded fear of imminent peril;
• Where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the threatened act.

Question 2

Battery

Answer 2

• A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or substance put in motion by that other person.
• Note: offensive touching can constitute battery even if it does not cause injury, and even if it could not reasonably be expected to cause injury.

Question 3

Defenses to Assault and Battery

Answer 3

i. Consent:
• Where a defendant has the plaintiff’s consent to commit an act of assault or battery, the plaintiff may not later bring a lawsuit. The most typical context for consent occurs in sports, where injuries that result from rule violations that are part of ordinary play are unlikely to support a legal action. Consent also exists in the context of authorized medical or surgical procedures.
ii. Police Conduct:
• A police officer is privileged to apply the threat of force, or if necessary to apply actual force, in order to effect a lawful arrest. A defendant who suffers injury as the result of reasonable force exerted by the police to effect a lawful arrest will not be able to sustain a lawsuit against the arresting officers for assault or battery.
iii. Self-Defense:
• A person who is assaulted may use such reasonable force as may be necessary, or which at the time reasonably appeared to be necessary, to protect himself from bodily harm. An act of self-defense must be proportionate to the threat.
iv. Voluntary (Mutual) Combat:
• Where the plaintiff voluntarily engages in a fight with defendant for the sake of fighting and not as a means of self-defense, the plaintiff may not recover for an assault or battery unless the defendant beats the plaintiff excessively or uses unreasonable force.
v. Defense of Property:
• Many jurisdictions allow the use of some amount of threat or force by a person who is seeking to protect his or her own property from theft or damage. However, there is no privilege to use force that may cause death or serious injury against trespassers unless the trespasser threatens death or serious injury.
vi. Provocation:
• Words alone, no matter how insulting or provocative, do not justify an assault or battery against the person who utters the words.

Question 4

False Imprisionment

Answer 4

i. Definition:
• When the defendant intentionally confines the plaintiff, either physically or by overcoming the plaintiff’s will, to a definable area from which there is no reasonably apparent means of escape.

Question 5

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Answer 5

i. Definition (elements):
• The defendant must act intentionally or recklessly.
• The defendant’s conduct must be extreme and outrageous.
• The conduct must be the cause of severe emotional distress.
ii. No precise definition, but conduct must be “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. The defendant’s conduct must be more than malicious and intentional; and liability does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, or petty oppressions.

Question 6

Vicarious liability

Answer 6

One person is found to be liable because someone else has acted unreasonably
The unreasonableness of one person is assessed against the other even though this other person did not do anything wrong
Examples:
Employer/employee
Joint enterprise
Family purpose doctrine

Question 7

Joint and several liability

Answer 7

When two or more defendants contribute to the plaintiffs injuries they remain individually liable to the plaintiff for total amount of injuries

Question 8

To prove defense of assumption of risk:

Answer 8

• The plaintiff had actual knowledge of the risk involved in the conduct or activity;
• The plaintiff voluntary accepted the risk, either expressly through agreement or implied by their words and conduct (i.e., they cannot be forced to perform the activity)
• Also, it is usually necessary to prove that the danger was obvious, or that the nature of the conduct was inherently dangerous