Intentional Torts Flashcards
Prima Facie Elements
a. Intent (intent to act v. intent to harm)
b. Act
c. Causation
d. Damages
Defenses
a. Consent
b. Insanity
c. Defense of Person/Property
d. Necessity
Trespass to Person (Battery)
Intentional and wrongful physical contact with a person, without his or her consent, that entails some substantial certainty. knowledge of injury.
(Vosburg v. Putney-does not matter whether contact was intended to cause harm
Eggshell Rule
The plaintiff must be taken as you find her when contact was made. D is responsible for full result of damages.
Substantial Certainty Test
There must be substantial certainty that act will cause injury. The precise harm does not need to be known, just substantial certainty that harm will result. (Garratt v. Dailey)
Intent
A person intentionally causes harm if he brings about that harm either purposefully or knowingly (purposefully- desire to bring about the that harm; knowingly-certain harm will occur). (White v. University of Idaho- Any touching that is consented to is at least battery).
Elements of intentional tort
1- Voluntary act (physical component)
2- Unlawful intent (mental component)
3- Impermissible Consequence (Wanted to make contact)
4- No defense
Transferred Intent
The law will transfer the law of unlawful intent to whomever it applies.
e.g. A throws a stick at B, misses and hits C.
Trespass to Land
Injury is not required in trespass to land. Even unauthorized entry onto the land of another is a trespass regardless of the amount of damages. ( Dougherty v. Stepp)
-Proportionality is key in protection of property cases. (M’llvoy v. Cockran)
Consequential Damages In Tort
All consequential damage that occurs from the act must be considered. (Cleveland Park Club v. Perry- sticks ball into pool pipe. Pipe had a cover. Wanted to make contact with the drain cover. Defense? No.
What are possible defenses to an intentional tort?
a. Consent, Implied consent
b. Insanity
c. Defense of Person/Property
d. Necessity
Consent
If ∆’s actions exceed the consent given, and he does a substantially different act than authorized, then he is liable. This an affirmative defense- burden on ∆. (Mohr v. Williams- Dr. operated on the L ear, π consented to operation on the R ear)
Emergency Defense
Implied consent–> π would have wanted to have live, she would have wanted a doctor to perform life saving procedures.
Insanity
An insane person is liable in tort for damages caused when she was (a) capable of entertaining intent to commit harmful/unlawful act, (b) did in fact entertain that intent, and (c) acted upon that intent. (McGuire v. Almy)
Problems with insanity defense:
1- Hard to know what is going on inside the mind of a mentally ill individual
2- By not making insanity a legit defense, it will make those in charge of watching over mentally ill much more vigilant.
Defense for ∆- why single out mentally ill for this vigilance of wrongdoing? Is it right to hold someone responsible who may not understand fault?Can you hold a minor liable? Policy needs to be universally applied. Discriminatory not apply to all classes of people.
Self Defense
An action of force (complete defense) is justified by self-defense whenever the circumstances cause a reasonable person to believe this life is in danger or that he is in danger of receiving great bodily harm and that it is necessary to use such force for protection. (Courvoisier vv. Raymond.
- Relatively of perspectives is very important.
- Would a reasonable person do the same thing?
