Intentional Torts Flashcards
What are the elements of battery?
Battery requires: (i) an act by defendant that causes a harmful or offensive contact to plaintiff’s person; (ii) intent to cause the harmful or offensive contact; and (iii) causation.
An attorney came to work on a Saturday. When he signed in, he was advised by the morning security guard employed by the building management that he must be out of the building by 5 p.m., when it closes. However, he stayed past 5 p.m. to complete a brief that had to be filed on Monday morning. At 5:15 p.m., the afternoon security guard set the locks on all the doors of the building and left. Because she was in a hurry, she did not check the sign-in sheet to make sure that everyone had signed out, contrary to mandatory procedures. When the attorney tried to exit 15 minutes later, he discovered that the doors were all locked and could not be opened from the inside. He used his cell phone to call for help, and a supervisor from the building arrived and let him out shortly thereafter.
If the attorney sues the building management for false imprisonment, is he likely to win?
The attorney will lose because the guard did not know that he was still in the building. For false imprisonment, the plaintiff must show (i) an act or omission on the part of the defendant that confines or restrains the plaintiff to a bounded area, (ii) intent on the part of the defendant to confine or restrain the plaintiff, and (iii) causation. Here, because the guard apparently did not know that the attorney was still in the building, she had no intent to confine him when she locked the doors.
A husband was on his way to meet his wife for lunch at the restaurant in the lobby of a bank building where she worked. He had just entered the building, which was owned and operated by the bank, when he heard screams and the sound of breaking glass from the restaurant area. He immediately saw that a large piece of artwork made of stained glass had fallen onto the seating area of the restaurant. In the seating area he saw several injured persons, including his wife, lying in the wreckage of the artwork. He fainted and hit his head on the marble floor, fracturing his skull. The artwork had collapsed because the pedestal that the bank had provided for the artwork was not properly constructed.
If the husband sues the bank for his injury, is he likely to prevail?
The husband will recover for his injuries because his wife was among those injured by the collapse of the artwork. The duty to avoid negligent IIED may be breached when the defendant creates a foreseeable risk of physical injury to the plaintiff. In most jurisdictions, a bystander who sees the defendant negligently injuring another can recover for his own distress if (i) the plaintiff and the person injured by the defendant’s negligence are closely related, (ii) the plaintiff was present at the scene of the injury, and (iii) the plaintiff personally observed or perceived the event. Observation is typically by sight, but may also be by hearing or other senses under certain circumstances. Here, the husband heard the screams and the sound of breaking glass when the artwork collapsed as he entered the lobby. Even though he evidently did not see the artwork collapse on the diners, he heard it crash where his wife was sitting and saw the immediate aftermath. Because his wife was one of the persons injured by the collapse of the artwork, he can recover damages for the injuries caused by his distress.
A dog whistle manufacturer’s factory was located near a residential area. The manufacturer used the most effective methods for testing its whistles, but it was impossible to completely soundproof the testing area. A breeder of champion show dogs bought some property near the factory and raised and trained her dogs there. Although the whistles were too high-pitched to be perceived by human ears, they could be heard by the breeder’s dogs. Consequently, the dogs often were in a constant state of agitation.
In a suit by the breeder against the manufacturer, what is the likely outcome?
The breeder will not recover because there has been no substantial interference with her use or enjoyment of her land, nor has there been a trespass. A private nuisance is a substantial, unreasonable interference with another person’s use or enjoyment of her property. The interference must be offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to the average person in the community. It is not a substantial interference if it merely interferes with a specialized use of the land. Here, the testing of the dog whistles did not bother humans, and so it did not disturb the average person in the community. It is disturbing to the breeder’s dogs, but this affects only her specialized use of her land. Thus, the manufacturer’s actions do not constitute a private nuisance.
A newspaper printed in a news article that a successful businessperson running for the state legislature had attempted suicide and had just been released from the hospital, where he had undergone intensive psychotherapy. Actually, the businessperson had been hospitalized because he had contracted hepatitis. The businessperson’s opponent, the incumbent legislator, read the story into the legislative record the next day.
The businessperson sued the incumbent for defamation. At trial, the businessperson established that the incumbent had serious doubts as to the accuracy of the story when she read it into the record.
Is the businessperson likely to recover?
The businessperson will not recover against the incumbent because, as a state legislator, she was absolutely privileged to read the story into the record on the floor of the legislature. Remarks made by either federal or state legislators in their official capacity during legislative proceedings are absolutely privileged. There is no requirement of a reasonable relationship to any matter at hand. The incumbent is a state legislator. When she read the newspaper article into the legislative record, she was speaking in her official capacity as a legislator, on the floor of the legislature. Thus, her reading of the article is cloaked with absolute privilege, and she will be shielded from liability for defamation.
*even though the businessperson appears to have established actual malice by the incumbent, he will not recover. The businessperson, as a candidate for public office, is a public figure, and information about his health is probably a matter of public concern. Thus, to recover, the businessperson must show actual malice (i.e., knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth or falsity). However, this showing of malice still will not provide the businessperson a recovery because the incumbent has an absolute privilege. If she had only a qualified privilege, a showing of malice would defeat the privilege.
A mining company closed down operations at an isolated mine it owned and informed the electric company that electricity in the power poles that led to the mine should be cut off. However, the electric company, following its standard policy, left the power running in the line to deter thieves from stealing valuable transformers and cables. The mining company was unaware that the power was left on.
A hitchhiker who was passing by the entrance to the mine saw that it was closed, so he went onto the property and climbed up a power pole to steal a transformer. He received an electric shock and fell from the pole, suffering serious injuries.
If the hitchhiker sues the mining company, which of the following is the mining company’s strongest defense?
A - hitchhiker was a trespasser.
B - hitchhiker was a thief.
C - mining company asked the utility company to turn off the power.
D - mining company was unaware that the utility company had not turned off the power.
The hitchhiker’s status as a trespasser is the mining company’s strongest defense because it means that the mining company owed no duty to the hitchhiker, thereby completely relieving the mining company of any liability for his injuries. An owner or occupier of land owes no duty to an undiscovered trespasser.
The hitchhiker, having come onto the land owned by the mining company without permission or privilege, is a trespasser. Because the mining company had no notice of the hitchhiker’s presence on the property, the hitchhiker is deemed to be an undiscovered trespasser. Consequently, the mining company owes no duty to the hitchhiker with regard to the injuries incurred on its property.
A company operated a small amusement park on property it owned near a residential neighborhood. On a day when the park was closed, a 10-year-old girl snuck into the park with some friends by climbing over a chain link fence. While climbing on one of the carnival rides, the girl slipped and cut her leg on an exposed gear assembly, sustaining serious injuries.
Through her guardian ad litem, the girl brought suit against the company to recover damages for her injuries. At trial, she presented evidence of the accident and her injuries. In defense, the company established that the girl read and understood the “No Trespassing” signs that were attached to the fence. The company also established that it had not had any previous reports of children sneaking into the park when it was closed. Before submission of the case to the jury, the company moved for summary judgment.
Is the court likely to grant the company’s motion?
The court is not likely to grant the company’s motion because the jury must determine whether the attractive nuisance doctrine applies. Under this doctrine, a landowner has a duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to children, including trespassing children, caused by artificial conditions on his property. Here, while the company has presented some evidence against application of the attractive nuisance doctrine, it is ultimately the trier of fact’s role to determine whether the doctrine applies and whether the company exercised ordinary care. Hence, the court will likely deny the company’s motion and allow the jury to make that determination.
