Intentional Torts - Interference with the Person Flashcards
Battery - Definition
intentional harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff
Battery - Elements
a. Act, i.e., volitional movement.
b. Intent - desire or knowledge with substantial certainty that harmful or offensive contact will occur. A defendant does not have to intend a specific harm or type of injury. Also, no intent to hurt/injure is required. The intent must exist at the time of the act.
c. Contact/touching. Element is met if you put a force in motion. It is also met if the contact is with something closely associated with the plaintiff (Fisher v. Carousel Motor Hotel).
d. Contact/touching is harmful or offensive:
(1) Harmful means that the contact/touching either causes injury or inflicts pain.
(2) Offensive means that the contact/touching offends a reasonable person’s sense of dignity. If the plaintiff is hypersensitive contact is not necessarily offensive unless the defendant know of the hypersensitivity and proceeds anyway.
(3) It is not necessary that plaintiff be aware of the touching at the time it occurs.
e. Damages – none are needed for a prima facie case but plaintiff may recover all damages sustained.
Assault - Definition
Intentional inducement of plaintiff’’s reasonable apprehension of a harmful/offensive touching
Assault - Elements
Elements:
a. Act, i.e., volitional movement (same as for battery).
b. Intent - desire or knowledge with substantial certainty that plaintiff will sustain a harmful or offensive touching or will be placed in reasonable apprehension of a harmful or offensive touching.
c. Reasonable apprehension:
(1) Apparent ability v. actual ability – if defendant is 25’ away who cares (Western Union Telegraph v. Hill).
(2) Words alone are inadequate unless coupled with conduct (pat gun in pocket but what about a threat to a blind person). But look to intentional infliction of emotional distress as a possible option.
(3) Threats of future harm are not sufficient (threat must be imminent to be actionable).
(4) Qualified threats are not sufficient.
(4) Must be aware of the event at the time it occurs.
d. Contact/touching would be harmful or offensive (known sensitivity changes the analysis).
e. Damages (see battery).
False Imprisonment - Definition
intentional confinement of the plaintiff
False Imprisonment - Elements
a. Act, i.e., volitional movement – may also be a failure to act when one is under an obligation to act (Whittaker v. Sandford).
b. Intent - desire or knowledge with substantial certainty that plaintiff will be confined. No intent if you lock the door without knowledge that anyone is inside the room. But what if you intend to lock one person in a room and by mistake lock up someone else?
c. Confinement - overcoming plaintiff’s will to leave in a way that will overcome a reasonable person’s will to leave (Hardy v. LaBelle’s Distributing Co.). Force is not necessary and a verbal threat may be sufficient. Modern trend is toward finding confinement if plaintiff is inconvenienced to a great degree - take car keys, take clothes while skinny dipping, ladder, crutches, wheelchair (Whitaker v. Sandford). But there is no confinement if there is a reasonable means of escape. But plaintiff does not have to search for a means of escape or run any risk to person or property in order to escape. Plaintiff must be aware of the confinement at the time it occurs unless confinement causes injury or damage (Parvi v. City of Kingston).
d. Damages (see battery). Plaintiff may also be able to recover for any injuries sustained while attempting to escape (Sindle).
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - Definition
Extreme and outrageous act by a defendant intended to cause severe emotional distress
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - Elements
a. Act, i.e., volitional movement – words alone may be sufficient.
b. Intent - desire or knowledge with substantial certainty that plaintiff will experience severe emotional distress. Intent can be present if an act is directed at one person and causes emotional distress to another (East Area Rapist) but transferred intent does not apply to IIED. Also consider Taylor v. Vallelunga situation where father was beaten on Christmas day and daughter observed the event.
c. Extreme and outrageous act. Conduct which exceeds all bounds normally tolerated by decent society and extremely likely that mental harm will result You should evaluate the totality of the situation. Mere profanity, insults, indignities are insufficient to establish this element (Slocum v. Food Fair Stores). Also conduct which in and of itself is not outrageous, can become outrageous if it continues. You must also consider who the plaintiff is in evaluating the totality of the situation (child, pregnant, elderly, known sensitivity, etc.). Common carriers/innkeepers have a higher obligation and can be held liable for gross insults which would otherwise not be actionable.
d. Damages - conduct must result in severe emotional distress. Some jurisdictions require physical manifestation. If you feel badly that is not enough (Harris v. Jones). The modern approach is that physical injury is not required
