Intentional Torts Flashcards
Battery
A battery is a voluntary act that causes a harmful or offensive contact to a person or to anything closely connected to the person. The defendant must act with a purpose to harm the person or to touch her in a way she wishes to avoid or the defendant must be substantially certain that the contact will be harmful or offensive to the person.
Assault
An assault is an intentional act that places the plaintiff is reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. The plaintiff’s subjective recognition that she is about to be touched in an impermissible way is at the core of an assault claim. Thus, the plaintiff must be aware of the threat.
1) Furthermore, the defendant must have the present ability to carry out the attack. The threat of a future harm, without reason to expect some immediate touching, is not enough.
2) While words alone do not constitute an assault, threatening words accompanied by action may suffice if the plaintiff is put in apprehension of imminent harm.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
To recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant, by extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally or recklessly caused her severe emotional distress. Conduct is extreme and outrageous when it is utterly intolerable and goes beyond all bounds of decency in a civilized society. A common example of outrageous conduct includes acts and threats of violence.
ESSAY TIP
Since assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress compensate the victim for purely psychological affronts, the two torts should be brought up together in an essay.
False Imprisonment
False imprisonment occurs when the defendant intentionally confines or restrains the plaintiff against his will to a bounded area. The plaintiff must either know of the confinement or be harmed by it.
1) Confinement means the plaintiff has no reasonable means of escape. To be reasonable, the means of escape must be readily knowable and reasonably safe. Furthermore, the defendant can cause the confinement by either physical force or threats. Thus, an unlawful detention may be accomplished by words alone if their effect is to restrain the plaintiff.
Merchant’s Privilege (Shopkeeper’s Privilege)
A merchant who reasonably believes that a person has committed a theft may detain that person for a reasonable period of time and for the limited purpose of investigating the facts. The merchant is entitled to use a reasonable amount of force in order to effect restraint. The rationale for the rule is the practical need to protect shopkeepers when dealing with suspected shoplifters.
1) The merchant loses the privilege, if he detains the plaintiff either for an unreasonable amount of time or in an unreasonable manner. Thus, the privilege is limited both in duration and scope.
2) A merchant who acts reasonable is protected even though it turns out that the person detained is innocent of any wrongdoing.
Trespass to Land
A person is liable for trespass if he intentionally enters or causes something to enter the land of another e.g. throws a ball, casts a stone, or pushes another person onto the land. Any person who has a right to possession can sue for trespass whether that person is the owner or not.
1) The intent required for trespass is the intent to enter the land. One who enters the land under the mistaken belief that it is his property or that he has a right to be there is a trespasser. In other words, a good faith mistake is no defense. The defendant must only intend the act which constitutes entry.
2) Finally, the plaintiff is not required to prove actual harm as the essence of this tort is the interference with the right of exclusive possession. Thus, the plaintiff can always recover at least nominal damages for trespass to land.
Trespass to Chattels
Trespass to chattel is the intentional interference with the plaintiff’s use or possession of personal property. To establish liability for trespass to chattel, the plaintiff must show a legally recognizable harm. Such harm can be prove if the defendant dispossess the plaintiff of the chattel, the chattel’s condition or value is impaired, or the plaintiff is deprived of the use of the chattel for a substantial period.
1) Damages are usually measured by the loss in value (including rental value) or any damage done to the chattel. Nominal damages are NOT allowed.
ESSAY TIP
Conversion and trespass to chattels are very similar. The main difference is the degree of harm to the property. The more serious the harm, the more likely it is conversion.
Conversion
Conversion is the intentional exercise of dominion and control over an item of personal property that seriously interferes with the plaintiff’s right to ownership. Such examples include the intentional destruction of an item, a major alteration, or serious damage to the property.
1) Moreover, the intent required for conversion (as well as for trespass to chattels) is the intent to perform the act that interferes with the plaintiff’s right of possession. Thus, mistake is no defense.
2) For conversion, the interference must be quite substantial to justify forcing the defendant to buy the chattel. As such, the measure of damages is the value of the item at the time the property is converted. Because the remedy is a forced sale the defendant obtains title to the property.
Transferred Intent
Under the doctrine of transferred intent, if the defendant intends to commit one tort but his act results in a different tort, the defendant is liable for the harm caused. Additionally, not only does the intent to commit one tort satisfy the intent requirement for the other tort, but the intent to commit a tort against one person can transfer to any other person.
1) Transferred intent applies to only five torts: assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to chattel, and trespass to land.
Transferred Intent - Extended Liability for Unintended Harms
Courts tends to hold an intentional wrongdoer responsible for an extensive range of consequences, including consequences her never intended. Accordingly, the defendant is liable for any unexpected harm resulting from his intentional conduct since it is appropriate to impose liability for intentional wrongs that go away.
Mental Disability
In most jurisdictions, a person’s mental disability does NOT provide immunity from tort liability. Mentally disabled persons are responsible for the torts they commit regardless of their capacity to comprehend their actions.
1) The real question in intentional tort claims against mentally disabled individuals is whether the defendant in fact entertained the intent required to establish a particular tort. A mentally disabled person who acts with the requisite intent does NOT escape liability because of his disability.
Intent
For intentional torts, the defendant must act with a purpose to accomplish the result or must know to a substantial certainty that his actions will bring about the result.
Parent’s Liability for Children
Parents are NOT vicariously liable for their children’s torts. Courts have been reluctant to impose liability upon parents for the torts of their children.
