Intentional Torts - People

Question 1

battery

Answer 1

prima facie case requires plaintiff show: 1) harmful or offensive contact 2) to plaintiff’s person 3) by defendant 4) intent 5) causation NOTE: defendant must act with the intent to cause the contact or touch (not necessarily the overall actual result - but with the intent to at least cause the contact or touch) ALSO NOTE: if defendant was attempting to scare/frighten/intimidate - ie by swinging a bat or club - and accidently makes contact - that intent to assault will (under transferred intent) transfer to the tort of battery. {But where there was only an intent to make fun of someone, or to show frustration - but not to create apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact - and accidental contact occurs - no battery, because the requisite intent for an assault wasn’t present. Hypo - the golfer behind her instructor, swinging club around to make fun of him - club slips from her hands, hitting instructor - no requisite intent for either assault or battery…so no intentional tort.]

Question 2

With regard to assault, must a plaintiff feel fear or intimidation?

Answer 2

No - a plaintiff may apprehend an immediate harmful or offensive contact without feeling fear or intimidation

Question 3

apprehension

Answer 3

expectation of contact (Apprehension is not the same as fear or intimidation. With regard to torts, it means “expectation.” Thus, one may reasonably apprehend an immediate harmful or offensive touching even though he believes he can easily defend himself or otherwise avoid it.)

Question 4

offensive touching

Answer 4

any touching that is not permissive/with the plaintiff’s consent (but note the societal exception)

Question 5

assault

Answer 5

prima facie case requires the plaintiff to show: 1) defendant created 2) a reasonable apprehension 3) in the plaintiff 4) of an immediate harmful or offensive contact 5) intent 6) causation (In other words, it’s apprehension of an imminent battery)

Question 6

With regard to assault, can a defendant ever be liable for a plaintiff’s UNreasonable apprehension or exaggerated fears?

Answer 6

Normally no - but YES if defendant knows of it and uses it to put the plaintiff in apprehension.

Question 7

Can words alone establish the element of apprehension in an assault case?

Answer 7

No - words alone, no matter how violent, do not constitute an assault. Some overt act is required. If words are accompanied by an overt act, such as clenching a fist, then it may suffice.

Question 8

Can a conditional threat establish the element of apprehension in a prima facie case of assault?

Answer 8

Yes

Question 9

example of a conditional threat, in an assault case

Answer 9

gunman, while pointing a gun toward plaintiff, states “your money or your life”

Question 10

Are damages a required element of intentional torts?

Answer 10

no, except for intentional infliction of emotional distress (that tort DOES require damages be proven as part of prima facie case)

Question 11

Does intentional infliction of emotional distress require intent?

Answer 11

no - recklessness will suffice

Question 12

damages required for intentional infliction of emotional distress

Answer 12

• actual damages (severe emotional distress) - vs nominal damages - are required to be proven

Question 13

Is a physical manifestation of emotional distress required for prima facie case of intentional infliction of emotional distress?

Answer 13

no

Question 14

What is the one (and only) intentional tort where recklessness will suffice for the intent element?

Answer 14

intentional infliction of emotional distress

Question 15

What is the one (and only) intentional tort where plaintiff must prove damages as part of prima facie case?

Answer 15

intentional infliction of emotional distress

Question 16

false imprisonment

Answer 16

1) an act or omission by defendant 2) that confines or restrains plaintiff 3) to a bounded area 4) intent 5) causation

Question 17

Conduct that may not otherwise be considered outrageous may be so designated in cases where it was directed against what categories of people?

Answer 17

1. children
2. elderly people
3. pregnant women
4. supersensitive adults, if defendant knew of the supersensitivity

Question 18

Conduct that may not otherwise be considered outrageous may be so designated in cases where it was commited by what categories of people?

Answer 18

1. common carriors
2. innkeepers
   3.