Intentional Torts Terms Flashcards
Tort
A collection of named and relatively well-defined legal wrongs that allow victims to take action against the wrong doer or tortfeasor.
- Legally recognized
- Wrongful injuring of another
- That generates in the other a right of action against wrongdoer
Tort Law
The rules and principles that define wrongful conduct delineate the circumstances where a victim can obtain redress and designate the form that such redress may take features:
- Part of common law
- “We let the loss lie where it falls” (Holmes) Tort law let us shift a loss from the victim -> wrong doer
- Two goals:
1. Compensate victims for harms—corrective justice or civil recourse
2. Guide private conduct to promote safety and protection of human dignity—deterrence
Intentional Torts
Emphasize the difference between torts and tort of negligence. Intentional cannot be committed entirely by accident
(Battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress)
Battery
The infliction of a harmful or offensive contact by an actor upon another with the intent to cause such bodily contact Requires physical contact.
Assault
Intentionally causing another reasonably to apprehend imminent, harmful or offensive contact. doesn’t require physical contact
False Imprisonment
Intentionally confining another against her will
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)
Intentionally or recklessly, causing another to suffer severe emotional distress throughout outrageous conduct
Battery—Prima Facie Case
- A acts
- Intending to cause contact with P
A) Limits: (a) some degree of physicality, (b) extended personality = contact with “anything so connected with the body as to be customarily regarded as part of the other’s person” - The contact with P that A intends is of a harmful or offensive type; and
- A’s act causes P to suffer a contact that is harmful or offensive
Offensive Touching (Rest 3rd, 3)
- Offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity or;
- The actor knows the contact is highly offensive to another person’s reasonable standard of personal dignity and makes contact with them with the purpose to offend.
Assault: Prima Facie Case
- A acts;
- Intending to cause in P apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact; and
- A’s act causes P reasonably to apprehend such contact
Doctrine of Transferred Intent
One who intends a battery is liable for that battery even when he is unexpectedly harms an unintended victim
Affirmative Defenses
If established defeat tort liability. Standard tort defenses tend to be justifications, not excuses.
Justifications: entitled to engage in conduct regardless of wrongfulness (ex: self defense)
Excuses: something about D’s conduct or circumstances entitles her to an exemption from the rules of right conduct (ex: diminished mental capacity)
Standard Affirmative Defenses to Intentional Torts
- Consent
- Self-Defense & Defense of Others
- Defense & Recapture of Property
- P’s fault is not a defense
Consent
It’s based on P’s conduct D actually and reasonably believed P consented to the contact there cannot be liability.
Expressed: Written or spoken statement
Implied: Acts, circumstances (ex: O’Brien immigrant vaccinated on board a ship, D reasonably believed P consented)
Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ Statute
Eliminated the duty to retreat by granting D an irrebuttable presumption that she acted on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of imminent death or serious bodily harm if someone:
- Occupied the house or vehicle
- Castle Doctrine: victim may use deadly force in his dwelling, but only if he has attacked him without the option of safe retreat - Any other place one has a right to be
- No duty to retreat, even if easy & safe
Recapture of Personal Property
-Transitory occupation (momentary) = owner may use reasonable force to remove
- Peaceful, non-transitory unlawful occupation = risks criminal or civil penalty if using force (ex: tenant w/ expired lease)
- Mistaken Property = Not protected by using force (ex: mixed up it was my bike)
- is protected if you’re correct
False Imprisonment—Prima Facie Case
A is subject to liability to other person, P, for false and prisonment, if
- A acts;
- Intending to confine P;
- A’s act causes P to be confined; and
- [P is aware of her confinement]
Some jurisdictions add…
5. P did not consent to be confined; and
6. A was not legally authorized to confine P
Eggshell Skull Rule
D is liable to compensate P to make her whole which can extend beyond physical damages and the measurement is flexible
Type I and II of False Imprisonment Cases
I: D confines P under a claim of authority (ex: police arrest)
II: D confines P without pretense of authority (ex: friend locks friend in closet)
Shopkeeper’s Privilage
A person who reasonably believes another person has stolen or is attempting to steal property is privileged to detain that person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to investigate ownership of the property. 3 elements:
- reasonable belief that a person is stolen or attempting to steal;
- Detention for a reasonable time;
- Detention in a reasonable manner
Causes of Action
- intentional torts (battery, assault, false imprisonment
- negligence
- strict liability (ex: blasting land with dynamite to build apartment complex)
Consent to Illegal Activities
Courts will sometimes deem valid consents as void against public policy because consented-to conduct is a crime
Old approach: You cannot consent to an illegal activity because we want to protect you (prevent D from obtaining consent), “unclean hands”
- ex: ANB participate in an unlicensed boxing match and a severely injured B. Be con sue a for battery, despite bees consent because the licensing scheme legal matches aims to protect persons like by reducing risk of harm, having referees to regulate contest.
- same weight class for boxing is designed to protect the victim if they’re consenting to an illegal illegal activity
Modern approach: grounds for consent defense is whether you need the statue to be protective (narrowed down for specific conduct)
- Rest. Says consent to conduct a crime —> defense to a tort claim unless the conduct was considered a criminal—to protect consenting person from his own choices
