Intentional torts Flashcards

Question

Can you have battery and no assault?

Answer 1

Yes, think Mohr v. Williams where physician decided to operate on the patients other ear. She was unconscious so no apprehension thus no assault

Answer 2

Is extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another If bodily harm results they are liable for that as well

Answer 3

Intentionally cause emotional distress or act in reckless disregard for the probability of emotional distress

Answer 4

Measured by the degree of probability that mental distress will follow Must be a causal connection between wrongful conduct and emotional distress

Answer 5

Looking to conduct, the relationship (teacher/student or friends jokingly vs. peer, acquaintance, coworker), motivation of the D and abuse of position of authority

Answer 6

Russell v. Salve Regina College- Obese P in nursing program was pushed by staff and faculty to loose weight. Even executed a contract with her to continue nursing program only if weight lost. Intent- they intended to mentally encourage her to loose weight even though they didn't intend the consequences Reckless disregard- should have known because of the vulnerability (relationship made P dependent on university) Extreme and outrageous- Distress- nausea, vomiting, diarrhea

Answer 7

is intentional and actual confinement of a detainee without consent from the detainee or authority by law that the detainee was aware of or injured from.

Answer 8

Willful detention by the D May be Accomplished by violence, threats or any other means that restrain a person

Answer 9

The threat was one that would inspire in the threatened person a just fear of injury to his person, reputation or property

Answer 10

Person who is detainee must be conscious of the confinement or physically harmed by it If P is not conscious of confinement, then there is no claim unless P was physically harmed

Answer 11

A misrepresentation of material facts with an intent to deceive that causes justifiable reliance by the P and injury to the P due to such reliance

Answer 12

Misrepresentation of material facts Material fact is a fact that is going to have an affect on the decision e.g. statements of opinion, statement of intention, concealment or failure to disclose

Answer 13

Intent to create a false impression e.g. Indrees v. American Univ- displaying photographs of hospital shows intent to make students think they were affiliated

Answer 14

Must be Reasonable reliance | P is not expected to be in the position of checking all the info that is relayed, per say

Answer 15

Financial | Emotional

Answer 16

Intentional contact with a person's real property that is not consensual

Answer 17

Must have purpose or knowledge with substantial certainty that you're moving your feet on to that piece of ground regardless of knowing its owned property Being physical brought against will is not a tort trespass but threatened to go on property is because there is intent

Answer 18

You can have permission to come on someone's property but that permission may have a certain scope which limits the allowed activity on the property. Once a person exceeds the scope of permission they become a trespasser

Answer 19

Interest in living on your property in relative piece e.g. dust and smoke, wetland, bugs and frogs This is still a trespass: Knowledge with substantial certainty that the activity would result in contact with a person's property and is not consented

Answer 20

Where a nuisance has been found and where there has been substantial damage by the party complaining and injunction may be granted

Answer 21

If you cause harm to person or property from your activity you may be liable. Very limited doctrine. Must improve intent to engage in activity and that an alteration to the property occurred. For purpose of class limits to explosives. Factors considered: A) existence of a high degree of risk to harm B) likelihood harm will result is great C) extent activity is common usage D) inability to eliminate risk by exercise of reasonable care E) inappropriateness of activity F) extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attribute

Answer 22

Defendants actions to protect itself must be equivalent to or reasonable to the threat posed

Answer 23

Is an appropriate response to a threat. Doesn't have to be perfect but it's also not excessive force. Did the D have a reasonable belief they were threatened with contact and did the D use a reasonable approach under the circumstances? E.g, Katko v. Briney- shotgun set up in bedroom to shoot trespassers. Not an equal force. D liable Courvoiser v. Raymond- Denver case where D was woken up by people trying to break an entry. Chased them off property and shot in air to scare away, saw person approaching him to shot at him thinking it was one of the perpetrators but it was a policeman. Action was wrong but reasonable under the circumstance D not liable

Answer 24

Private necessity- necessity created from outside force, usually an entry on land and justifies the trespass because of a necessity The injury to the D that is being threatened is the right to exclusion of property. Did the trespasser have a reasonable belief they were threatened with contact and did they use a reasonable approach under the circumstances? Did the property owner do the same in return? Trespasser is still liable for any damages caused by their entry

Answer 25

Ploof v. Putnam- sailing with family and storm broke out. P secured boat to D's dick but D's servant untied. D's conduct not reasonable under the circumstance

Answer 26

For intentional torts you have to prove intent to engage in the activity. Not that harm was intended but the activity that caused the harm was intended.

Answer 27

One who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to liability for harm to the person, land or chattels of another resulting from the activity, although he has exercised the upmost care to prevent the harm Very limited doctrine!