Intentional Torts

Question 1

There are three elements for intentional torts. The plaintiff is required to prove that…

Answer 1

(1) The act was voluntary and (2) some relevant level of intent and (3) causation

Question 2

A voluntary act is…

Answer 2

One where the defendant must ahve the state of mind that directed the physical movement.

Question 3

Intent, in torts, is when

Answer 3

Defendant acts with the purpose of causing the consequence; OR Defendant acts knowing the consequence is substantially certain to occur.

Question 4

Consequence means….

Answer 4

the act that constitutes the tort

Question 5

When we talk about consequence, what matters is that the defendant intended to commit the tort, not necessarily that the defendant intended…

Answer 5

the particular harm that followed.

Question 6

If they act with the relevant intent, children and mentally incompetent persons (can/cannot) be held liable for intentional torts.

Answer 6

can

Question 7

The “transferred intent” concept will satisfy the intent requirement of certain torts in three alternate scenarios…what are they?

Answer 7

A person intends to commit an intentional tort against one person but instead commits:

(1) A different intentional tort against the same person;
(2) The same intended tort against a different person; OR
(3) A different intentional tort against a different person.

Question 8

The “transferred intent” concept applies to certain intentional torts. What are they?

Answer 8

battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattel. NOT intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Question 9

Causation means…

Answer 9

The defendant’s tortious conduct was a substantial factor in creating the harm.

Question 10

A battery occurs when

Answer 10

The defendant causes a harmful or offensive contact with the person of another, and, acts with the intent to cause that contact or the apprehension of that contact.

Question 11

Define “Harmful contact”

Answer 11

Contact which causes an injury, physical impairment, pain or illness

Question 12

Define “offensive contact”

Answer 12

Where a person of ordinary sensibilities (reasonable person, objective standard) would find the contact offensive. Note that the defendant might be liable if aware that the victim is hyper sensitive but acts nonetheless

Question 13

An unconscious medical patient is inappropriately touched by someone. Is this a battery?

Answer 13

Yes. Plaintiff does not need to be aware of the battery.

Question 14

True or False. Contact with the person means that the contact must actually touch the person, and not just something connected to the person (like clothing).

Answer 14

False. Battery can be found even when the defendant contacts something connected to the person.

Question 15

What is the eggshell plaintiff rule, or the thin skull plaintiff rule?

Answer 15

The defendant is not required to foresee the extent of damages to be liable for all damages.

Question 16

In battery, when you can’t prove actual harm, what happens?

Answer 16

You can still recover nominal damages.

Question 17

Many states allow punitive damages if the defendant acted with ________

Answer 17

malice or in an outrageous fashion, or out of some wrongful motive.

Question 18

What is an assault?

Answer 18

Plaintiff’s reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive bodily contact caused by the defendant.

Question 19

Intent, when it comes to assault, can be shown when…

Answer 19

the defendant acted with the intent to cause the apprehension, or the contact itself.

Question 20

I attempt to throw a rock at you, but miss hitting you. Is this a tort?

Answer 20

If I created imminent apprehension, then I have committed assault. The intent element is satisfied by transferred intent.

Question 21

Plaintiff’s apprehension must be ________, and plaintiff must be _______ or have ________ of the defendant’s act. Actual fear is not required.

Answer 21

reasonable
/aware
/knowledge

Question 22

Imminent means…

Answer 22

Without significant delay. Threats of future harm are not sufficient.

Question 23

Words, coupled with the circumstances, (can/cannot) indicate an imminent threat of a harmful or offensive contact.

Answer 23

can. Mere words are not enough, however, if done in the right circumstances, it will cross the line and become an assault.

Question 24

When it comes to damages for an assault what proof is required and what is recoverable?

Answer 24

No proof of actual damages is required, plaintiff can recover nominal damages. Plaintiff can also recover damages from physical harm flowing from the imminent apprehension, such as when the plaintiff suffers a heart attack.

Question 25

Which of the following is NOT a basic element of intentional torts?

(a) Act
(b) Purpose
(c) Intent
(d) Causation

Answer 25

b

Question 26

FILL IN THE BLANKS. A battery is ______ contact with the __________ without _________.

A
any; body of another; intent

B
any; person of another; consent

C
harmful or offensive; body of another; intent

D
harmful or offensive; person of another; consent

Answer 26

d

Question 27

Which of the following statements regarding assault is FALSE?

A
Mere words are generally not enough to create an assault.

B
The threatened harmful or offensive contact must be imminent.

C
The plaintiff must prove actual damages to recover for assault.

D
The plaintiff must be aware of the defendant’s act.

Answer 27

c

Question 28

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Answer 28

A defendant is liable for intentionally or recklessly acting with extreme or outrageous conduct that causes the plaintiff severe emotional distress. NOTE Courts tend to be hesitant to recognize this tort.

Question 29

Extreme or Outrageous Conduct is…

Answer 29

conduct that exceeds the limits of common decency so as to be intolerable to society. Commonly found when the defendant is in a position of authority or influence over the plaintiff or if the plaintiff has some heightened sensitivity that the defendant takes advantage of.

Question 30

Extreme or Outrageous conduct is NOT

Answer 30

mere insults, indignities or threats.

Question 31

If the conduct is directed at a member of the victim’s immediate family who is present at the time of the conduct, and the defendant is aware of that presence, then that person can be liable whether or not there has been physical injury for what tort?

Answer 31

IIED

Question 32

If there is a bystander who is present at the time of the conduct and the defendant is aware of that bystander’s presence and that bystander suffers distress that results in bodily injury, then that person can be liable for what?

Answer 32

IIED

Question 33

A defendant picks up a big knife and threatens to stab a child in the presence of the child’s mother. That conduct would be extreme and outrageous conduct. The mother (third party) that was present would be able to bring an action against the defendant for what?

Answer 33

IIED

Question 34

What is severe emotional distress?

Answer 34

Plaintiff must prove severe emotional distress beyond what a reasonable person should have to endure.

Question 35

Most courts do not require that the plaintiff prove physical injury to prove IIED except in the case where…

Answer 35

what you’re recovering for is conduct directed at a bystander, rather than a member of your family, in that case courts require physical injury as well.

Question 36

What is false imprisonment?

Answer 36

The defendant acts intending to confine or restrain another within boundaries fixed by the defendant; The actions directly or indirectly result in confinement; and plaintiff is aware of the confinement or harmed by it.

Question 37

In terms of false imprisonment, the plaintiff must be confined within a bounded area. What does this mean?

Answer 37

Plaintiff’s freedom of movement in all directions must be limited; Area can be large; Does not have to be stationary; Not considered bounded if there is a safe means of escape. Also, the refusal to perform a duty to release the plaintiff from existing confinement or to provide a means of escape can be considered false imprisonment.

Question 38

What is the shopkeepers privilege?

Answer 38

A shopkeeper has a reasonable privilege to detain a suspected shoplifter, without being considered false imprisonment.

Question 39

A store refuses to unlock a dressing room where someone is trying on clothes. Is this a tort?

Answer 39

Yes, false imprisonment.

Question 40

Example. You later realize that while you were trying on clothes, a prankster store clerk had locked the door as a joke. Before you had a chance to open the door, the store manager told the clerk to unlock the door. Is this a tort?

Answer 40

No. You would not be able to recover for false imprisonment because you were neither aware of the confinement nor harmed by it.

Question 41

False Imprisonment damages (dont need to be/need to be) actual.

Answer 41

They don’t need to be actual. Nominal damages are available.

Question 42

Express Consent is when…

Answer 42

the plaintiff by words or actions manifests a willingness to submit to the conduct. HOWEVER, the defendant’s conduct cannot exceed the scope of the consent.

Question 43

I ask you to hit me over the head with your boxing gloves, so I can test my ability to take a punch. If you hit me with a brick as I walk away, is that a tort?

Answer 43

Yes, because you’ve exceeded the scope of my express consent.

Question 44

Consent by mistake is valid, unless

Answer 44

the defendant caused the mistake or knew of it and took advantage of it.

Question 45

Consent by fraud is invalid if it goes to an ________ matter. Consent by fraud is valid if it goes to a ________ matter.

Answer 45

essential/collateral

Question 46

I ask you to punch me with a boxing glove. The defendant is fully aware that the boxing glove is coated with poison, so that when I am punched, I would suffer a punch and a deadly reaction.

Is my express consent a defense to the tort of battery?

Answer 46

No, This is consent by mistake because the defendant knew and took advantage of the mistake and it went to an essential matter. Therefore, my consent would not be a defense to my charge of battery when I am punched by the boxing glove.

Question 47

I enter into a boxing match under the impression that I would be paid $1,200. However, I am only going to be paid $1,100. Is my consent a defense to an intentional tort?

Answer 47

No, I have still consented because it is a collateral matter.

Question 48

Consent obtained under duress (threats of physical force) is invalid, however, threats of _______ duress will not make consent invalid

Answer 48

economic

Question 49

If you agree to enter into a fistfight because you really need the money is your consent invalid?

Answer 49

No. You’ve consented. Economic duress does not invalidate consent.

Question 50

Consent does not need to be express, it can be implied. Define implied consent.

Answer 50

When a reasonable person would object and you are silent; or when you enter into circumstances when you are signaling indirectly your willingness to endure certain conduct.

Question 51

You agree to play in a football game. An opposing player hides a hammer and brings it onto the field. He tackles you at the end of a play and then hits you over the head with the hammer. Is the tackle a tort? Is the head injury from the hammer a tort?

Answer 51

The tackle is not a tort because you have impliedly consented to be tackled. This is because it is within the normal scope of the sport of football. However, you have not consented to be hit over the head with a hammer. That is outside of the normal scope of the sport, and therefore your consent doesn’t apply to that.

Question 52

Consent can be undermined by _____

Answer 52

youth, intoxication, incompetency

Question 53

Self Defense is the use of reasonable force to defend against an offensive contact or bodily harm. The force must be ________ ______ to the anticipated harm.

Answer 53

reasonably proportionate.

Question 54

A reasonably mistaken belief about a threat is a (valid/invalid) defense.

Answer 54

valid.

Question 55

If someone is charging towards you waving a big stick and screaming and you pick up a chair and throw it at them, you have behaved reasonably using force proportionate to the threat. What if it turns out later that the person wasn’t trying to hit you?

Answer 55

Even if it turns out later that the person wasn’t trying to hit you, but that there was someone behind you that was trying to hurt you, you still have the defense.

Question 56

Until recently, many courts required retreat before one could use deadly force. But many jurisdictions have enacted statutes to change this. These are called stand your ground laws. What do these laws say?

Answer 56

Under certain circumstances, when faced with deadly harm, you can use self-defense if you are in a place you are legally entitled to be, particularly if you are at your home, then you are not required to retreat.

Question 57

Can you start a fight and then when someone comes back at you, claim self defense?

Answer 57

No, the initial aggressor is not entitled to claim self defense.

Question 58

If you are acting in self defense and you injure a bystander are you liable?

Answer 58

No, as long as the injuries were accidental and the actor was not behaving negligently.

Question 59

You see someone who you reasonably believe would be entitled to defend themselves against some harm. Can you intervene?

Answer 59

Yes, you can use reasonable force in defense of others.

Question 60

You can use reasonable force to prevent tortious harm to property, but not ______ force…unless…

Answer 60

deadly. Unless you’re defending yourself or your family IN YOUR HOME.

Question 61

Reasonable force may be used to reclaim personal property that has been wrongfully taken by another. But if the original taking was lawful and the current possessor has merely retained possession beyond the time consented to, then ______ _____ are the only means to be used.

Answer 61

peaceful means.

Question 62

Use of force to reclaim land is (permitted/not permitted)

Answer 62

not permitted any longer.

Question 63

Parents can break tort law. What are they allowed to do?

Answer 63

Parent may use reasonable force or impose reasonable confinement as necessary to discipline their child.

Question 64

Private citizens are permitted to use force to make an arrest when the crime is a felony if

Answer 64

the felony has actually been committed and the arresting party has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person being arrested has committed the felony. NOTE reasonable mistake as to identity is permissible, but not a mistake as to whether the felony was actually committed.

Question 65

Police are permitted to make arrests for felonies if:

Answer 65

They must reasonable believe a felony has been committed and that the person arrested committed it. NOTE - DISTINCTION: An officer who makes a mistake as to whether a felony has been committed is not subject to tort liability.

Question 66

Private parties my make an arrest for a misdemeanor if:

Answer 66

An arrest may be made only if the misdemeanor is a breach of the peace - being committed or reasonably appears to be about to be committed in the presence of the arresting party.

Question 67

Which of the following circumstances is a court more likely to find extreme or outrageous conduct in an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim?

A
When the defendant insults the plaintiff

B
When the defendant has threatened the plaintiff

C
When the defendant is in a position of authority or influence over the plaintiff

D
When the defendant has committed an indignity towards the plaintiff

Answer 67

c

Question 68

Which of the following statements regarding false imprisonment is FALSE?

A
The doctrine of transferred intent applies to false imprisonment.

B
Correct Answer: The plaintiff can only recover if he was conscious of the confinement at the time it occurred.

C
The defendant may restrain or confine the plaintiff by failing to provide a reasonable means of safe escape.

D
Generally, the plaintiff is not required to prove actual damages.

Answer 68

b - This is a trick. B is right because it’s a half rule. There is another way for the plaintiff to recover, and that’s when they are not aware of the confinement but suffer from it.

Question 69

Which of the following statements regarding the defense of consent is FALSE?

A
Consent can be either express or implied.

B
Mistake can invalidate consent if the defendant knew of the mistake and took advantage of it.

C
Fraud invalidates consent when the fraud goes to an essential matter.

D
A person has not consented when they remain silent in a situation when a reasonable person would object to the defendant’s actions.

Answer 69

d

Question 70

Which of the following statements about self-defense is TRUE?

A
Force used in self-defense must be reasonably proportionate to the anticipated harm.

B
A person always has a duty to retreat.

C
A person is liable for acting on a mistaken but reasonable belief that his life was in danger.

D
An initial aggressor is always entitled to claim self-defense.

Answer 70

a

Question 71

FILL IN THE BLANKS. A person may use ______________ to ___________.

A
a deadly mechanical device; defend her property

B
reasonable force; defend her property

C
deadly force; reclaim her property that has been wrongfully taken by another

D
deadly force; defend her property

Answer 71

b

Question 72

Which of the following is FALSE regarding the privilege of arrest?

A
A private citizen may use force to make an arrest in the case of a felony if a felony has actually been committed and the arresting party has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person being arrested committed it.

B
A private citizen is not subject to tort liability if he makes a reasonable mistake as to the identity of the felon.

C
An officer must reasonably believe that a felony has been committed and that the person she arrests committed it.

D
An officer is subject to tort liability if they make a mistake as

Answer 72

d

Question 73

An intentional interference with the plaintiff’s right to chattels is done one of two ways. What are they?

Answer 73

(1) dispossessing the plaintiff, or using or intermeddling with the plaintiff’s use of the chattel.

Question 74

Intent, when it comes to trespass to chattels, is…

Answer 74

only intent to do the interfering act. NOTE the defendant need not have intended to interfere with another’s possession of tangible property.

Question 75

You throw your bike off a bridge but it turns out that it wasn’t your bike and was actually someone elses. Is this a tort even though you didn’t intend to destroy someone elses bike?

Answer 75

Yes, it’s a trespass to chattels. Mistake about the legality of the action is not a defense.

Question 76

Damages: Trespass to Chattels. What damages can be recovered when the chattel is dispossessed? What about when the defendant has deprived the plaintiff of use?

Answer 76

Dispossession: Recovery can be for actual damages caused, and for loss of the use of the goods.

Use or Intermeddling: Recovery can be for actual damages ONLY.

(Actual Damages: example: diminution in value or the cost of repair.)

Alternative to Damages -> Replevin - give it back.

Question 77

What is conversion?

Answer 77

Defendant intentionally commits an act depriving the plaintiff of possession of his or her chattel or interfering with the plaintiff’s chattel in a manner so serious as to deprive the plaintiff entirely of the use of the chattel.

Question 78

Conversion damages are calculated as…

Answer 78

The full value of the chattel at the time of conversion.

Question 79

Conversion requires intent. What is the definition of intent in this tort?

Answer 79

Defendant must only have intended the interfering act. Mistake of law or fact is not a defense.

Question 80

Interference (Conversion) can occur by

Answer 80

exercising dominion or control over the plaintiff’s chattel.

Question 81

Conversion is interference to such a degree that it is fair to make the defendant pay the full value. But it’s still difficult to determine the difference between conversion and trespass to chattels. What are the factors distinguishing the two?

Answer 81

The duration or extent of the interference; Defendant’s intent to assert a right inconsistent with the rightful possessor; Defendant’s good faith; Expense or inconvenience to the plaintiff; and Extent of harm to the chattel.

Question 82

What is trespass to land?

Answer 82

The defendant intentionally causes a physical invasion of someone’s land.

Question 83

What type of intent is needed for trespass to land?

Answer 83

Defendant need only have the intent to enter the land or cause the physical invasion, not the intent to commit a wrongful trespass. Therefore, mistake of fact is not a defense.

Question 84

You throw a rock onto someone’s property. Is this a tort?

Answer 84

This is a trespass to land (even though your body never went onto their land, you caused a physical invasion)

Question 85

You are rightfully on someone’s property but then they tell you to leave. You don’t. Is that a tort?

Answer 85

That is trespass to land. Your failure to leave after a lawful right of entry has expired is a physical invasion.

Question 86

Distinguish trespass and nuisance.

Answer 86

Trespass always involves an actual physical invasion or intrusion upon the land. Nuisance may or may not involve a physical invasion or intrusion.

Question 87

Plaintiff has suffered a trespass to land but cannot prove actual damages. Can they recover anything?

Answer 87

Nominal damages. Also, actual harm, and defendant is liable for all the consequences even if much more severe than anticipated.

Question 88

Necessity is an incomplete defense to trespass to land. What is it?

Answer 88

a. In General

Available to a person who enters onto the land of another or interferes with their personal property to prevent an injury or to prevent another severe harm.

b. Private Necessity

Incomplete privilege – the defendant must pay for actual damages that he has caused.

You DO still have to pay for the harm that you cause.

c. Public Necessity

Private property is intruded upon or destroyed when necessary to protect a large number of people from public calamities.

You DO NOT have to pay for the harm that you cause.

Question 89

What is private nuisance?

Answer 89

An activity that substantially and unreasonably interferes with another’s use and enjoyment of land. EG - loud music, odors.

Question 90

Nuisance interference intent can be….

Answer 90

intentional, negligent or reckless or the result of an abnormally dangerous activity.

Question 91

What is unreasonable interference?

Answer 91

If the conduct that interferes with the use and enjoyment of land is unintentional, then the plaintiff must show that the conduct was negligent.

If the conduct that interferes with the use and enjoyment of land is intentional, then it will be considered a nuisance if it is more than the plaintiff should have to bear.

Question 92

If someone builds a building next to you that blocks your view of the mountains or the lake, or blocks the sun to your garden, is that a tort?

Answer 92

No, it’s not a nuisance. EXCEPTION - if someone builds a fence right up against your property to block your view, courts will find that actionable.

Question 93

Defenses to private nuisance depend on whether…

Answer 93

…the defendant’s conduct was negligent, intentional, or abnormally dangerous. The defenses for negligence, for instance, work if the conduct was negligent, etc.

Question 94

You accuse someone of nuisance because they are making too much noise. Can they defend the claim by saying that they did not violate any administrative regulations?

Answer 94

No.

Question 95

You can’t “come to the nuisance.” What does this mean?

Answer 95

If you move somewhere knowing about conduct, courts are hesitant to allow you to complain that the conduct unreasonably interferes with your use and enjoyment of the land.

Question 96

If you move next to a farm, can you complain of farm odors as a nuisance?

Answer 96

Courts are going to be hesitant, because you “came to the nuisance.”

Question 97

What is a public nuisance? Two elements:

Answer 97

(1) Unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public - eg - pollution, blocking a stream or highway, interfering with public’s use of public space.
(2) Special harm - you the plaintiff have been harmed in a special or distinct way, different from the public

Question 98

Public Nuisance is best understood as a concept because…

Answer 98

If something is interfering with the right of the public as a whole, presumptively the public agencies should deal with it. Ends up becoming a defense…

Question 99

Remedies for Nuisance:

Answer 99

Damages, Injunction common, although courts will hesitate to award an injunction in circumstances where the value of the activity is great compared to the harm it has created.

Question 100

A person may enter another’s land to abate a private nuisance however, they first must…

Answer 100

give the defendant notice of the nuisance and the defendant must refuse to act. A public nuisance will be abated by a public agency/authority.

Question 101

Which of the following statements about trespass to land is FALSE?

A
A trespass to land requires a physical invasion of the land.

B
Mistake of fact as to ownership of the land is not a defense.

C
Correct Answer: Actual damages must be proved.

D
The defendant need only have the intent to enter the land to be liable for trespass.

Answer 101

c

Question 102

Which of the following statements regarding trespass to chattels is FALSE?

A
The requisite intent to be liable for trespass to chattels is the intent to do the interfering act.

B
Mistake by the defendant about the legality of his actions is not a defense.

C
In circumstances of use or intermeddling, the plaintiff may still recover even if he cannot show actual damages.

D
In the case of dispossession, a plaintiff may recover for actual damages caused by the interference and the loss of use.

Answer 102

c

Question 103

Which of the following is NOT a factor the court considers when determining whether conduct is a conversion or a trespass to chattel?

A
The duration of the interference

B
The plaintiff’s good faith

C
The expense or inconvenience to the plaintiff

D
The extent of the harm to the chattel

Answer 103

b

Question 104

Which of the following is the measure of damages for conversion?

A
The amount of loss suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendant’s actions

B
The full value of the property at the time of the conversion

C
The full value of the property at the time of discovery

D
The fair market value minus depreciation

Answer 104

b

Question 105

Which of the following is NOT an example of a public nuisance?

A
Interfering with the use of private property

B
Blocking of a public highway

C
Interfering with the use of public space

D
Air pollution

Answer 105

a

Question 106

Which of the following statements regarding private nuisance is FALSE?

A
“Coming to the nuisance” is a complete defense.

B
Courts have refused to find obstruction of sunlight as creating a private nuisance.

C
The interference can be intentional, negligent, reckless, or the result of abnormally dangerous conduct to constitute nuisance.

D
Compliance with state or local administrative regulations is not a complete defense.

Answer 106

a

Question 107

One way in which a defendant can be said to have the intent necessary for an intentional tort is if she acted with the purpose of bringing about the consequence. What is the other way in which a defendant can be said to have acted intentionally?

Answer 107

If he or she acted knowing that the consequence was substantially certain to occur

Question 108

Does this mean that in order to be liable for an intentional tort the defendant must have intended or anticipated the extent or exact nature of the harm?

Answer 108

No

Question 109

What is the doctrine of transferred intent?

Answer 109

When a person intends to commit an intentional tort against one person, but instead commits either:

1) A different intentional tort against that person;
2) The intended tort against a different person; or
3) A different intentional tort against a different person

Question 110

To what intentional torts does the doctrine of transferred intent apply?

Answer 110

Battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels; but does not apply to the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress

Question 111

What are the elements of the tort of battery?

Answer 111

Elements:
1) Intentional harmful or offensive contact with the person of another;
2) Defendant causes a harmful or offensive contact with the person of another; and
3) Acts with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension of such contact
There is no battery if there has been consent.

Question 112

What is the tort of assault, and how is it different from battery?

Answer 112

Assault is the plaintiff’s reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive bodily contact caused by the defendant’s action or threat with the intent to cause either the apprehension of such contact or the contact itself.
If battery if hitting someone, then assault is making someone think they are about to be hit.

Question 113

What constitutes the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)?

Answer 113

A defendant is liable for intentionally or recklessly causing severe emotional distress with extreme or outrageous conduct.

Question 114

Does the doctrine of transferred intent apply to IIED?

Answer 114

No

Question 115

What are the elements of the tort of false imprisonment?

Answer 115

When a person acts:

1) Intending to confine or restrain another within fixed boundaries;
2) Those actions directly or indirectly result in such confinement; and
3) The other is either aware of the confinement or is harmed by it

Question 116

Consent is a defense to intentional torts. Does that consent need to be explicit?

Answer 116

No. Consent can be implied, as by participating in a contact sport.

Question 117

What are the requirements for the defense of self-defense?

Answer 117

A person may use reasonable force to defend against an offensive contact or bodily harm. The force used in self-defense must be reasonably proportionate to the anticipated harm.

Question 118

May one use force to defend another person? Is defense of others a defense?

Answer 118

One is justified in using reasonable force in defense of others upon reasonable belief that the party would be entitled to use self-defense. The force must be proportionate to the anticipated harm.

Question 119

May force ever be used to protect property?

Answer 119

A person may use reasonable force to defend her property if she reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent tortious harm to her property.

Deadly force may not be used merely in defense of property.

If someone uses deadly force in defending their home, it is only valid if in the process of defending their home they reasonably believe themselves, their families, or others to be in danger.

Question 120

What is the tort traditionally known as trespass to chattels?

Answer 120

Intentional interference with the plaintiff’s right to chattels (i.e., tangible personal property) by either:

1) Dispossessing the plaintiff of the chattel; or
2) Using or intermeddling with the plaintiff’s chattel.

Question 121

What is the tort of conversion?

Answer 121

A defendant is liable for conversion if he intentionally commits an act depriving the plaintiff of possession of her chattel or interfering with the plaintiff’s chattel in a manner so serious as to deprive the plaintiff of the use of the chattel. The plaintiff’s damages are the chattel’s full value or replevin.

Question 122

What is the tort of trespass to land?

Answer 122

When defendant intentionally causes a physical invasion of land

Question 123

If the defendant thinks the land is his, has he still committed trespass to land?

Answer 123

Yes. The defendant need only have the intent to enter the land (or to cause a physical invasion), not the intent to commit a wrongful trespass. In other words, mistake of fact is not a defense.

Question 124

What is the defense of private necessity?

Answer 124

A defendant who acts to prevent a threatened injury or harm has the privilege to enter onto the property of another and to use that property in that way. The property owner cannot use self-help to exclude the defendant as a trespasser.

Question 125

What does it mean to say that private necessity is an incomplete privilege?

Answer 125

The property owner is entitled to recover actual damages even though the defendant is not a trespasser.

Question 126

What is the defense of public necessity?

Answer 126

A person enters onto the land in order to protect a large number of people from public calamities, such as the spreading of a fire. He is not liable for any damage to the property.

Question 127

What is the tort of private nuisance?

Answer 127

A private nuisance is a thing or activity that substantially and unreasonably interferes with another individual’s use and enjoyment of his land.

Question 128

What is a Zoey nuisance?

Answer 128

SQUIRRELS

Question 129

What is a public nuisance?

Answer 129

A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the public as a whole. A public agency is empowered by statute or regulation to take action to abate the public nuisance.

Question 130

A trespasser is injured by a wild rattlesnake who is owned by the landowner. Is the trespasser’s suit against the landowner alleging strict liability going to succeed?

Answer 130

an owner of a wild animal is generally not strictly liable to an undiscovered trespasser who is injured by the wild animal, except for injuries caused by a vicious watchdog