Intentional Torts Involving Personal Injury / Business Relations Flashcards
Battery
1) Harmful or offensive contact by D
- Harmful contact is contact that causes pain, injury, etc.
- Contact is offensive if it would be considered offensive by a reasonable person and P has not consented
2) To P’s person
- Includes anything connected to P’s person (e.g., P’s hat)
3) Causation: direct or indirect
- Indirect contact is sufficient — i.e., causing the force that gives rise to harmful or offensive contact
- E.g., greasing a floor so that P will slip and fall
4) D’s Intent:
-
Single-intent Rule (Majority): D may be liable if D
- (1) intends to bring about the contact;
- (2) D need not intend that the contact is harmful or offensive
-
Double-intent Rule: D must:
- (1) intend to bring about a contact and
- (2) intend that the contact be harmful or offensive.
- Transfer of intent applies
Assualt
An intentional act by D creating P’s reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact to P’s person
- Also considered an attempted battery
Elements:
1) Act by D that creates a reasonable apprehension in P
- “Reasonable apprehension” = P has knowledge of D’s act and has a reasonable expectation that it will result in immediate harmful or offensive contact to P’s person
- Note* — beware of fact patterns where D appears incapable of accomplishing the threatened harm.
- Apparent ability is sufficient, as long as it could reasonably create P’s apprehension
2) Of immediate harmful or offensive contact to P’s person
- P must apprehend an immediate or imminent battery
- Words or threats of future battery are usually insufficient, unless coupled with some overt act (e.g., picking up a weapon, clenching fists, etc.)
3) Intent
4) Causation
*
The tranferred intent doctrine applies only to:
1) Assault
2) Battery
3) False imprisonment
4) Trespass
Intentional Torts: Damages
Compensatory (i.e., monetary) Damages
Punitive damages are available for torts committed with malice
Transferred Intent Doctrine
Under the doctrine of transferred intent, an actor’s intent to commit an intentional tort against one person transfers to the actor’s commission of
(1) a different intentional tort against that same person,
(2) the intended tort against a different person, OR
(3) a different intentional tort against a different person.
Arises when D acts with the intent to commit a tort but:
1) commits it against a different person than intended
2) commits a different tort than intended, or
3) both 1 and 2.
* D’s original intent transfers the tort actually committed and/or person actually harmed, resulting in D’s liability.
Intentional Torts: Prima Facie Case
1) Act by D - requires some volitional movement
2) Intent - specific or general
- Specific: intent to bring about a specific harm
- General: substantial certainty that tortious conduct will result from D’s act
3) Causation: substantial factor
* D’s conduct must be a substantial factor in bringing about the resulting harm.
False Imprisonment
An act or failure to act by D resulting in P’s restraint or confinement to a bounded area
Elements:
1) Act (or omission) resulting in P’s restraint or confinement
- Restraint or confinement does not have to be physical
- E.g., threats of force, invalid use of legal authority
- Duration is not important; brief confinement will suffice
2) P is confined to a bounded area
- P must be aware of or harmed by the confinement
- P’s freedom of movement must be limited
- P must not be aware of any reasonable means of escape
3) Intent
4) Causation
False Imprisonment
Shopkeeper’s Privilege
Shopkeeper’s privilege — a store may detain a suspected thief if:
1) Store has reasonable cause to believe a theft occurred;
2) Store detains suspect for only a reasonable period and for purposes of investigation; and
3) Detention is reasonable; only non-deadly force allowed
* Shopkeeper may be held liable for any harm caused by acts exceeding the privilege.*
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Extreme and outrageous conduct by D causing P’s severe emotional distress
Elements:
1) Extreme and outrageous conduct by D
- Conduct that exceeds the bounds of decency in society
- Mere insults alone are insufficient
- Non-outrageous conduct may be actionable if:
1) D targets P’s known sensitivity or weakness,
2) D’s conduct is continuous or repetitive,
3) D targets a P who is a member of a “fragile” class (e.g., elderly, children, pregnant women), or
4) D is a common carrier or innkeeper
2) Severe emotional distress in P
- P must suffer severe emotional distress from D’s conduct
- Physical symptoms are not necessary
- Note — watch for facts indicating extreme, outrageous conduct but P is unbothered — this is not IIED
3) Intent or recklessness
- Recklessness = D disregards the likely consequences of his acts
4) Causation
IIED: Bystander Claims for Emotional Distress
A bystander closely related to a person physically injured or killed by D’s conduct MAY recover for emotional distress
Elements:
1) D’s conduct seriously injured or killed a third person
- D’s conduct must be intentional or reckless
- Bystander recovery is not available for medical malpractice
2) P is closely related to the injured person
- Exception — this element is not required if P shows that D had a design or purpose to cause P severe distress
3) P was present when the injury occurred
- P must clearly witness the injury-causing event
4) D knew elements 2) and 3)
5) P suffers severe emotional distress
- Physical manifestation is not required
Trespass to Land
A physical invasion of P’s real property by D
Elements:
1) Physical invasion of P’s real property by D
- D enters P’s property or propels an object onto it
- E.g., D walks on P’s property, throws a ball onto P’s property, chases someone onto P’s property
- P must only have actual or constructive possession of property
- Ownership not required
- Must be a physical invasion
- Invasions by light, sound, smell are not trespass (but may give rise to nuisance)
- P’s real property includes surface space, airspace, and subterranean space to a reasonable distance
2) Intent
- Intent to enter the land will suffice
- D does not need to know the land belongs to another
3) Causation
Trespass to Chattel & Conversion
Two separate but similar torts; the difference is the level of interference with P’s property and the damages P can recover
Elements:
1) D interferes with P’s right of possession in tangible personal property (chattel)
* Interference usually occurs through dispossession (depriving P of his possessory rights in chattel) or intermeddling (damaging P’s chattel)
- Trespass — minor interference or damage
- Conversion — significant interference or damage that justifies D paying the chattel’s full value
* A longer and/or more damaging use of P’s chattel gives rise to conversion
2) Intent
3) Causation
4) Damages — P must have some loss of use
- Trespass — P can recover cost of repair or rental value of chattel
- Conversion — P can recover full market value at the time of conversion or repossess the chattel (replevin)
Conversion
A defendant who has permission to use the plaintiff’s chattel commits conversion when he/she:
(1) intentionally uses the chattel in a way that exceeds the scope of permission AND
(2) seriously violates the plaintiff’s right to control the chattel.
The defendant is liable for the fair market value of the chattel at the time of the conversion.
To establish IIED in cases where the plaintiff’s distress stems from conduct that physically or emotionally harmed a third party, the plaintiff must generally prove the following facts:
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) requires proof that the defendant was at least reckless as to the risk that his/her extreme and outrageous conduct would cause the plaintiff severe emotional distress.
To establish this element in cases where the plaintiff’s distress stems from conduct that physically or emotionally harmed a third party, the plaintiff must generally prove the following facts:
1) The plaintiff contemporaneously perceived (i.e., saw or overheard) the defendant’s conduct.
2) The plaintiff was a close relative (i.e., immediate family member) of the harmed third party, AND
3) The defendant knew that the plaintiff was present and closely related to the harmed third party.
Three types of consent to battery:
A defendant is liable for battery if he/she intends to create contact (or imminent apprehension of contact) and causes harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff.
However, the defendant is not liable for battery if the plaintiff consented to such contact.
There are three types of consent:
1) actual consent – the plaintiff willingly submits to contact (eg, the plaintiff orders the defendant to hit him/her)
2) apparent consent – consent is reasonably understood based on the plaintiff’s conduct or social customs (eg, shaking hands and other ordinary social contact)
3) consent implied by law – the plaintiff is unable to consent and emergency action is required to save the plaintiff’s life or prevent serious harm (eg, administering CPR)
IIED against Public Figure (visual)
A public figure may recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the defendant’s publication if the defendant:
(1) acted in an extreme and outrageous manner,
(2) intentionally or recklessly caused the public figure severe emotional distress, and
(3) published a false statement of fact with actual malice.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) occurs when the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes the plaintiff severe emotional harm by engaging in extreme and outrageous conduct.
If the plaintiff is a public figure who alleges that his/her emotional distress was caused by the defendant’s publication (e.g., newspaper article, broadcast), then the plaintiff must also show that the defendant published a false statement of fact with actual malice—i.e., knowledge of, or reckless disregard for, the falsity of the statement.
