Intentional Torts to Persons Flashcards
General considerations for ALL intentional torts - to establish a prima facia case, the plaintiff must prove
To establish a prima official case for any intentional tort, the plaintiff must prove:
An act by the defendant
Intent by the defendant
Causation of the result to the plaintiff from the defendants act

General considerations for ALL intentional torts - to establish a prima facia case, the plaintiff must prove - act by defendant
The act required is a volitional movement by the defendant.
General considerations for ALL intentional torts - to establish a prima facia case, the plaintiff must prove - intent
The intent that is relevant for purposes of intentional towards is the intent to bring about the forbidden consequences that are the basis of the tort. The defendant does not need to attend the specific injury that results. Meaning the act was purposefully done. 
General considerations for ALL intentional torts - transferred intent
The transferred intent doctrine applies when the defendant intends to commit a tour against one person, but instead:
Commit a different tort against that person
Commits the same tort as intended by a different person
Or
Commits a different tort against a different person
In such cases, the intent to commit a certain tort against one person is transferred to the tort, actually committed or to the person actually injured for purposes of establishing a prima facia case. 
General considerations for ALL intentional torts - transferred intent - limitations
Transferred intent may be invoked only if both the tort intended, and the tort that results are one of the following: assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels. 
General considerations for ALL intentional torts - consideration
The result must’ve been legally caused by the defendants act or something set in motion by the defendant. Causation of satisfied if the defendants conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.
In most cases, causation will not be an issue when you were analyzing an intentional tour because it’s usually obvious that the defendants conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm. 
Battery - key elements
Intent
Harmful or offensive contact
Contact must be with the plaintiff’s person 
Battery - harmful or offensive contact
Contact is harmful if it causes actual injury, pain, or disfigurement.
Contact is offensive, if it would be considered offensive to a reasonable person. contact is considered offensive only if it hasn’t been permitted or consented to. However, consent will be implied for the ordinary contacts of every day life. 
Battery - harmful or offensive contact - direct or indirect contact
Contact can be direct or indirect like setting a trap for the plaintiff to fall into. Contact does not have to be instantaneous. (Putting poison in a sandwich is battery) 
Battery - plaintiff’s person
Plaintiffs person includes anything connected to the plaintiff. For example, clothing or a purse.
Battery - damages not required
The plaintiff can recover nominal damages, even if actual damages are not proved. The plaintive may recover punitive damages for malicious conduct.
Assault - key elements
Act by the defendant creating a reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff
Of an immediate battery
Assault - apprehension must be reasonable
The apprehension of harmful or offensive contact must be reasonable. Courts generally will not protect a plaintiff against exaggerated fears of contact.
Assault - apprehension must be reasonable - fear not required
Do not confuse apprehension with fear or intimidation. For example, a weakling can cause a bully to apprehend offensive contact for purposes of assault.

Assault - knowledge of act
For apprehension to be shown, the plaintiff must have been aware of the threat from the defendants act, although the plaintiff may not be aware of the defendants identity.
Assault - apparent ability sufficient
If the defendant has the apparent ability to commit a battery, this will be enough to cause a reasonable apprehension.
And unloaded gun is still enough because there is the apparent ability even if they physically cannot get shot. However, if the plaintiff knows it’s unloaded, then it’s not assault because there’s not apparent ability. 
Assault - effect of words
In the past majority of cases, words alone are not enough. For the defendant to be liable, the words must be coupled with conduct. However, words can negate reasonable apprehension. For example, the defendant shakes their fist, but states that they are not going to hit you. Or could be a conditional statement, like if you weren’t my friend, I would punch you. Or they say I will beat you up tomorrow, that is not immediate. 
Assault - requirement of immediacy
The plaintiff must be apprehensive that they are about to become the victim of an immediate battery.
Assault - damages not required
The plaintive can recover nominal damages, even if actual damages are not proved. Malicious conduct may permit recovery of punitive damages.
False imprisonment - elements
An act or omission on the part of the defendant that confines or restrains the plaintiff
The plaintiff must be confined to a bounded area
False imprisonment - methods of confinement or restraint
Physical barriers, like locking someone in a room
Physical force directed against the plaintiff, immediate family, or personal property, for example, compensating the plaintiff purse.
Direct threats of force hypersensitivity does not count, “if you leave, it’ll make me sad” is not a threat.
Indirect or implied threats of force
Failure to release the plaintiff when under illegal duty to do so, like a taxi driver refusing to let a customer out.
Invalid use of legal authority, like a false arrest. 
False imprisonment - insufficient methods of confinement or restraint
Moral pressure or future threats 
False imprisonment - time of confinement
It is irrelevant how short the period of time the confinement is
False imprisonment - awareness of confinement
The plaintiff must know of the confinement at the time that they are confined or be harmed by it
False imprisonment - what is a bounded area?
For an area to be bounded, freedom of movement must be limited in all directions. There must be no reasonable means of escape known to the plaintiff. It is not reasonable, if it is dangerous, disgusting, humiliating, or hidden.
False imprisonment - damages not required
The plaintiff can recover nominal damages, even if actual damages are not proved. Punitive damages may be recovered if the defendant acted maliciously. 
IIED - key elements
An act by the defendant amounting to extreme an outrageous conduct
The plaintiff must suffer severe emotional distress
IIED - extreme and outrageous conduct
This is conduct that transcends all bounds of decency tolerated in a civilized society.
Conduct that is not normally outrageous may come so if:
It is continuous in nature
It is committed by a certain type of defendant (common carriers, or in keepers may be liable even for mere gross insults)
It is directed towards a certain type of plaintiff (young children, elderly, someone who is pregnant, super sensitive adults if the sensitivities are known to the defendant)
IIED - requisite intent
Unlike for other intentional towards, recklessness as to the effect of the defendants conduct will satisfy the intent requirement
IIED - actual damages ARE required
Actual damages, not nominal damages are required. Proof of physical injury, generally is not required. Looking for severe emotional distress. The more outrageous the conduct, the less proof of damages is required. 
IIED - causation in bystander cases
When the defendants conduct is directed at a third person, and the plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress because of it, the plaintiff may recover by showing either the prima facia case elements of emotional distress, or that:
1) they were present when the injury occurred
2) the distress resulted in bodily harm or the plaintiff is a close relative of the third-party
And
3) the defendant knew these facts
IIED - Fallback
Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a fallback tort. Thus, if a nether alternative, and your exam question is a tort that will also allow the plaintiff to recover, it should be chosen over this alternative.
