Intentional Torts

Question 1

What four elements are required for the prima facie case for Battery?

1. _______ ________ Contact
2. _______ Intent
3. _______ ________
4. _______ Connection

Answer 1

1. Voluntary Harmful/Offensive Contact
2. Wrongful Intent
3. Physical harm/offense
4. Causal Connection

Question 2

Harmful Intent in Battery is defined as both

• the person acts with the purpose of producing that consequence OR
• the person acts knowing that consequence is _________ certain to result

Answer 2

Substantial

Harmful Intent can result from a person acting with the purpose of producing that consequence or the prospects knowing the consequence is SUBSTANTIALLY CERTAIN to result.

Question 3

How does the case of Talmage v. Smith (aka Stick v. Eye) apply to the Doctrine of Transferred Intent?

Answer 3

In Talmage v. Smith, the plaintiff was struck in the eye by stick thrown by the defendant. The defendant alleged that they did not see the plaintiff and were trying to throw the stick at the plaintiff’s companions, and thus did not intend to injure the plaintiff. The court held the defendant’s argument immaterial.

This confirms the principle of ‘Transferred Intent’. The defendant intended to hit someone with the stick and inflict injury. The fact that the injury resulted to another than intended does not relieve the defendant from responsibility.

Question 4

What are the differences between Trespass to Chattels and Conversion?

Answer 4

_fasd

Question 5

Trespass to Property Prima Facie

1. Voluntary _____ onto someone’s property
2. ________ (_______ to ‘be where you are’)
3. _______
4. Causation

Answer 5

Prima Facie

1. Voluntary Intrusion onto someone’s property
2. Intent (Intent to ‘be where you are’)
3. Damages (Nominal damages presumed for all tangible invasions; must be proven for intangible invasions)
4. Causation

Question 6

Trespass to Property

How is the requirement concerning the Prima Facie requirement for ‘Damages’ different between tangible (physical) Trespass to Property and intangible Trespass to Property?

Answer 6

Nominal damages are presumed for all tangible invasions; However, damages must be proven for intangible invasions.

Question 7

Trespass to Property

If the defendant voluntary intrudes onto plaintiff’s property, intending to be where they are on plaintiff’s property, but does NO damage, what is the court’s ruling?

Answer 7

The court may still treat as a Trespass to Property. Nominal damages re presumed.

Question 8

Trespass to Property

What is considered to constitute one’s ‘Property’ or land?

Answer 8

Courts generally consider a person’s land to include air space above and subsurface space below, to the height or depth a person can make beneficial use of such space. Thus Courts consider someones property to include land above and below the ground level.

Question 9

False Imprisonment

Is the below an example of False Imprisonment?

Burglar tells homeowner “Face the wall and don’t turn around or I’ll shoot you.”

A. Yes, False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment

Answer 9

A. Yes, False Imprisonment

This is a clear example of confinement by a threat of immediate physical force.

Question 10

False Imprisonment

Is the below an example of False Imprisonment?

Patient has appointment for 1 p.m., but physician leaves her in waiting room until 4:30.

A. Yes, False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment

Answer 10

B. No, not False Imprisonment

This is clearly not a confinement. The patient can leave at any time. Remaining in a room voluntarily to accommodate the desires of another is not confinement.

Question 11

False Imprisonment

Is the below an example of False Imprisonment?

Employer says “You leave the office today and you’re fired.”

A. Yes, False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment

Answer 11

B. No, not False Imprisonment

Plaintiff could leave and obtain later legal relief should the termination be wrongful, so there is no confinement. “[T]he use of threats of economic retaliation or termination of employment to coerce a victim to remain also do not constitute false imprisonment.”

Question 12

False Imprisonment

Is the below an example of False Imprisonment?

“If you leave, I’ll shoot your child sitting next to me.”

A. Yes, False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment

Answer 12

A. Yes, False Imprisonment

This is a clear case of confinement by other duress.

Question 13

False Imprisonment

Is the below an example of False Imprisonment?

“If you leave, I’ll shoot you on the street next time I see you.”

A. Yes, False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment

Answer 13

B. No, not False Imprisonment

This may be a deadly serious threat, but it is not a threat of immediate physical force. Consequently, no false imprisonment.

Question 14

False Imprisonment

Is the below an example of False Imprisonment?

Driver, trying to impress passenger with speed of car, refuses to pull over and let her out.

A. Yes, False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment

Answer 14

A. Yes, False Imprisonment

A driver who refuses to stop and let a protesting passenger get out of the car would have a duty to allow the passenger to leave. Ignorance of this duty results in the drivers’ liability.

Question 15

False Imprisonment

Is the below an example of False Imprisonment?

P is imprisoned for contempt for failing to produce corporate books. P asks D, who has books, to produce them. D refuses.

A. Yes, False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment

Answer 15

B. No, not False Imprisonment

A person having custody of the books of a corporation has no duty to another person to produce them.

Question 16

False Imprisonment

Is the below an example of False Imprisonment?

Customer accidentally locks himself in bathroom in defendant store. Store employees laugh instead of releasing him.

A. Yes, False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment

Answer 16

A. Yes, False Imprisonment

As an employee of the store, defendant has a duty to act to release the plaintiff. Ignorance of this duty results in the drivers’ liability.

Question 17

False Imprisonment

Is the below an example of False Imprisonment?

Customer accidentally locks himself in bathroom in defendant store. Other customers laugh instead of releasing him.

A. Yes, False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment

Answer 17

B. No, not False Imprisonment

Other customers in a store have no duty to open a washroom.

Question 18

False Imprisonment

True or false: all of the below can be considered appropriate, awardable damages for a person who has been Falsely Imprisoned.

Physical injury or injury to health
Physical discomfort or inconvenience
Mental suffering and humiliation
Harm to reputation or credit

Answer 18

True, all of these are awardable elements of damages for a plaintiff in a false imprisonment case.
Plaintiff may even be able to collect special and unusual consequential damages, such as theft of his car because it was unguarded while plaintiff was confined.

Question 19

False Imprisonment

True or false: both of the below can be considered appropriate, awardable damages for a person who has been Falsely Imprisoned.

Loss of time
Punitive damages

Answer 19

True. Both are awardable elements of damages for a plaintiff in a false imprisonment case.

However, “Loss of time” is mentioned in older cases as an appropriate element of damages; perhaps the cases mean loss of earning capacity for the time imprisoned–that would fit more closely with today’s ideas on damages.

Also, as an intentional tort, false imprisonment ordinarily supports a punitive award, but if defendant’s actions were mistaken and in good faith, such damages may be withheld.

Question 20

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Which of the below necessary elements of IIED differs from all other Intentional Torts?

A. IIMD requires specific intent on the part of the defendant.
B. IIMD requires defendant’s actions reach the level of extreme and outrageous conduct.
C. IIMD requires defendant’s actions cause mental distress in plaintiff.
D. IIMD requires plaintiff suffer severe emotional or mental distress.

Answer 20

Answer: D

The other intentional torts–all look to the defendant’s actions alone. IIMD looks not only to the defendant’s actions, but also to a threshold level of damages to the plaintiff. Defendant is not liable for minor mental upset: the distress must be severe. That requirement is intended to limit use of and disfavor the tort, and so it is almost certainly a response of the courts to the concerns mentioned in the previous question. The requirement also makes IIMD unique.

Per B, it is true that defendant’s actions must be extreme, while defendant’s actions in the other intentional torts can be tortious in only a technical sense, such as converting another’s property in good faith. At the same time, the defendant in IIMD must invade the plaintiff’s interest (in an extreme sense) just the same as a defendant must invade the plaintiff’s interest in all the torts. That doesn’t make IIMD truly unique.

Question 21

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Is the below an example of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?

D calls P on a cell phone in a theater and says “You’d better rush home. Your house is burning to the ground.”

A. Yes, IIED
B. No, not IIED

Answer 21

A. Yes, IIED

Telling someone he has lost his home seems “beyond all possible bounds of decency.”

Question 22

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Is the below an example of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?

D, in a fit of road rage, stomps up to P’s car, grabs a small dog from P’s lap, and throws the dog into freeway traffic, where it is struck and killed.

A. Yes, IIED
B. No, not IIED

Answer 22

A. Yes, IIED

This case was in the news. D received three years in prison! The judge must have been outraged. Cf. Restatement § 46 cmt. f, illus. 11 (IIMD liability when D shoots dog of pregnant woman). See also Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 46 comment d (2012).

Question 23

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Is the below an example of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?

P seeks treatment for self and baby from D physician, who responds with insults and a brush off.

A. Yes, IIED
B. No, not IIED

Answer 23

A. Yes, IIED

Frankly, this conduct doesn’t seem outrageous or atrocious, but the court in Rockhill v. Pollard, 485 P.2d 28 (Ore. 1971) thought it was actionable. The physician/patient relationship must have increased the outrage.

Question 24

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Is the below an example of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?

D approaches P, a complete stranger, on the street and invites P to join D in illicit sexual intercourse.

A. Yes, IIED
B. No, not IIED

Answer 24

B. No, not IIED

Precedent says this is not atrocious conduct. No mere invitation to illicit sexual intercourse is actionable, absent hounding or indecent exposure. See Prosser & Keeton § 12, at 61; Epstein § 1.8, at 18.

Question 25

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Is the below an example of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?

D faculty members at nursing school repeatedly use P student as example when discussing hospital procedures for care of obese patients despite her obvious distress.

A. Yes, IIED
B. No, not IIED

Answer 25

B. No, not IIED

The conduct is unprofessional, but not removed from the bounds of civilization, said Russell v. Salve Regina College, 890 F.2d 484, 488 (1st Cir. 1989). If you missed this one, so did the district judge.

Question 26

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Is the below an example of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?

D driver leans out window, flips the bird to P driver of another car, and yells “You must be a moron.”

A. Yes, IIED
B. No, not IIED

Answer 26

B. No, not IIED

Hard to say this is beyond human decency when you see this very thing all the time; it is the sort of bad manners that concerned courts about a flood of litigation over trivialities.

Question 27

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Is the below an example of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?

D and four masked men abduct P, take him to a farm field, handcuff him, and threaten to castrate him.

A. Yes, IIED
B. No, not IIED

Answer 27

A. Yes, IIED

This conduct seems clearly to exceed “all possible grounds of human decency.” The court in Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. 437, 276 S.E.2d 325 (1981) thought the conduct was outrageous.

Question 28

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Is the below an example of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?

D teacher calls P student a “Polish Nazi.”

A. Yes, IIED
B. No, not IIED

Answer 28

B. No, not IIED

Despite the student’s severe upset, the question is about D’s conduct. Even though teacher/student, Harville v. Lowville Central School Dist., 245 App. Div. 2d 1106, 667 N.Y.S.2d 175 (1997) said no claim for IIMD.

Question 29

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Is the below an example of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?

D car driver leans out window and yells at P driver “I have your license plate. I’ll be over in an hour to kill you, your entire family, and your family dog.”

A. Yes, IIED
B. No, not IIED

Answer 29

A. Yes, IIED

This specific, intimidating threat seems to me to go far beyond the usual abusive language of one driver to another. I’d say “outrageous” and “atrocious.”

Question 30

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Is the below an example of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?

D walks up to P on street and exclaims “You have to be the ugliest person I’ve ever seen.”

A. Yes, IIED
B. No, not IIED

Answer 30

B. No, not IIED

Rude, crude, but no tort. “The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults . . .. There must still be freedom to express an unflattering opinion . . ..” Restatement § 46 cmt. d.

Question 31

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Is the below an example of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?

Church member tells P leaving the church she will go to hell.

A. Yes, IIED
B. No, not IIED

Answer 31

B. No, not IIED

“California has held that a threat of divine retribution, no doubt distressing to a believer, is not actionable, although fraud that puts the target of religious persuasion in a coercive atmosphere might be.” Dobbs § 305, at 830, citing Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass’n, 46 Cal. 3d 1092, 252 Cal. Rptr. 122, 762 P.2d 46 (1988). If California won’t find for plaintiff, what state will?

Question 32

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Is the below an example of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?

D creditor calls P a deadbeat he will never trust again.

A. Yes, IIED
B. No, not IIED

Answer 32

B. No, not IIED

Even adding the fact that the statement is made in a rude and insolent manner, “A’s conduct, although insulting, is not so extreme or outrageous as to make A liable to B.” Restatement § 46 cmt. e, illus. 8. See also Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 46 comment d (2012).

Question 33

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Is the below an example of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?

Patron disgusted with movie yells out queen mother of obscenities at end of film.

A. Yes, IIED
B. No, not IIED

Answer 33

B. No, not IIED

Reluctantly, I have to agree. I’d like to find liability here, but of course this is just plain atrocious manners. A court would be hard pressed to find this conduct to be beyond all boundaries of civilized behavior when Hollywood filmmakers themselves somehow seem to think it is acceptable social behavior.

Question 34

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Is the below an example of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?

Hotel clerk asks couple if they want room for only an hour or so.

A. Yes, IIED
B. No, not IIED

Answer 34

A. Yes, IIED

This insult, which would be mere bad manners ordinarily, is actionable because the hotel is an innkeeper, and so is treated as a common carrier. Cases have found common carrier liability for “language which is merely profane or indecent, or grossly insulting.” See Restatement § 48.

Question 35

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

As noted previously, the plaintiff must ACTUALLY suffer emotional distress in order to uphold IIED in court.

Assuming that the defendant has committed an outrageous act on the plaintiff. Would the below qualify be severe enough to sustain an allegation of IIED?

P suffers a worry-filled and sleepless night after the outrageous act.

A. Yes, sufficient emotional distress to support claim
B. No, not sufficient emotional distress to support claim

Answer 35

B. No, not sufficient emotional distress to support claim

These symptoms seem rather mild on the continuum of distress. “Complete emotional tranquillity is seldom attainable in this world, and some degree of transient and trivial emotional distress is a part of the price of living among people.” Restatement § 46 cmt. j.

Question 36

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

As noted previously, the plaintiff must ACTUALLY suffer emotional distress in order to uphold IIED in court.

Assuming that the defendant has committed an outrageous act on the plaintiff. Would the below qualify be severe enough to sustain an allegation of IIED?

The events kept preying on P’s mind until hospitalization for depression.

A. Yes, sufficient emotional distress to support claim
B. No, not sufficient emotional distress to support claim

Answer 36

A. Yes, sufficient emotional distress to support claim

Yes, these symptoms sound pretty severe. Perhaps some detailing of the distress amounting to preying on the mind would be desirable, but the hospitalization certainly seems to provide some guarantee of seriousness of the condition.

Question 37

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

As noted previously, the plaintiff must ACTUALLY suffer emotional distress in order to uphold IIED in court.

Assuming that the defendant has committed an outrageous act on the plaintiff. Would the below qualify be severe enough to sustain an allegation of IIED?

P had repeated vomiting, headaches, worry, nervousness, and loss of sleep.

A. Yes, sufficient emotional distress to support claim
B. No, not sufficient emotional distress to support claim

Answer 37

A. Yes, sufficient emotional distress to support claim

Yes, this list of symptoms includes most of the outward signs of mental distress that are found in the cases. All of these together certainly would cross the line to severe mental distress.

Question 38

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

As noted previously, the plaintiff must ACTUALLY suffer emotional distress in order to uphold IIED in court.

Assuming that the defendant has committed an outrageous act on the plaintiff. Would the below qualify be severe enough to sustain an allegation of IIED?

P mad as hell and not going to take it any more.

A. Yes, sufficient emotional distress to support claim
B. No, not sufficient emotional distress to support claim

Answer 38

B. No, not sufficient emotional distress to support claim

No, but this one might not have been quite as easy as it appears. The Restatement includes anger and chagrin as two of the emotions that constitute mental distress, but the cases involve the other emotions in the list. A plaintiff probably would have a pretty tough time convincing a court that becoming angry–even infuriated–would constitute distress. The court might more likely view anger as a strong, positive response to the provocation. Anger together with some of the others would do it, but the facts of this question mention no other emotions.

Question 39

Battery

Under Vosburg v. Putney (Egg Shell Plaintiff Rule), what must be fulfilled in order to meet the requirement of Intent under the Prima Facie for Battery?

The _____ does not have to be intended, only the ______________ must be intended.

Extra credit:
“If the ____ is unlawful, the ______ is unlawful.”

Answer 39

The harm does not have to be intended, only the act that caused the harm must be intended

Vosburg v. Putney (Egg Shell Plaintiff Rule)

Question 40

Battery

Under Garratt v. Dailey (five year old chair puller), ____________ an act will be ___________ or _______ is sufficient to fulfill the requirement of Intent.

Answer 40

Substantial Certainty an act will be Harmful or Offensive is sufficient to fulfill the requirement of Intent.

Question 41

Battery

Under Wagner v. Utah (The Majority Rule, regarding battery and the mentally impaired), a mentally impaired person can be held liable for battery, as the requirement for Intent can be fulfilled by the Intent to ______ _______, and not the Intent to _________ _______.

Answer 41

The requirement for Intent can be fulfilled by the Intent to Make Contact, and not the Intent to Cause Harm.

Question 42

Battery

Under White v. Muniz (The Minority Rule, regarding battery and the mentally impaired), a mentally impaired person can be held liable for battery ONLY IF the ________ was intended and intended to be __________.

Answer 42

A mentally impaired person can be held liable for battery ONLY IF the Contact was intended and intended to be Harmful or Offensive.

Question 43

Battery

In which type of Jurisdiction is it more difficult to find a mentally-impaired person liable for battery?

A. Majority Rule
B. Minority Rule

Answer 43

B. Minority Rule

Under the Minority Rule, a mentally impaired person can be held liable for battery ONLY IF the Contact was intended and intended to be Harmful or Offensive.

Question 44

Battery

The Doctrine of Transferred Intent is established from Talmage v. Smith (stick misses target, hits bystander in eye).

True or False: under this doctrine, Intent cannot transfer from one victim to another victim.

Answer 44

False. Intent can transfer. If actor intends harm to someone, it does not matter if harm is done to an unintended victim instead.

Question 45

In Shaw v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco a non-smoking trucker shares cab with a smoker, then contracted cancer and sued the tobacco company for battery.

However, the court ruled in favor of the tobacco company, because the tobacco company lacked substantial certainty that second-hand smoke would touch the plaintiff, and _______ _________ is not sufficient to constitute intent in battery.

Answer 45

The court held that “Generalized knowledge” is not sufficient to constitute intent in battery.