Intentional Torts/Torts & Contracts Overlap Flashcards
Two Ways to Establish Intent (Intentional Torts)
- Purpose or desire to commit the harm
- Defendant knew to a substantial certainty that the harmful consequence would ensue
When speaking of intent, we don’t consider risk - rather we consider the purpose to bring about consequences
Depending on jurisdiction, need to prove intent or recklessness
Recklessness
- A person knows of the risk of harm created by their conduct or knows facts that make the risk obvious to someone else that is hypothetically in that situation
- The burden of precaution is so slight compared to the magnitude of the risk that the failure to adopt such measures indicates indifference
Battery v. Assault
-
Battery
- volitional act (omissions generally ruled out)
- an intent and transferred intent
- transferred: A intends to hurt B, but accidentally hurts C. C can sue A
- cause (direct or indirect) - establishing intent creates a relaxed scrutiny with cause
-
Harmful or offensive touching (hitting someone with bat)
- __Includes dignitary harms (spitting, shoving, etc.)
- can substitute “unpermitted” for offensive to help determine if something is offensive
- Damages
-
Assault
-
Apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive touching - it must be perceived
- pointing a gun at someone
- apprehension: hurt party needs to be aware that it’s happening (can’t be assaulted if unconscious)
- Has all other elements of battery
- Victim doesn’t have to be afraid, generally words aren’t enough, there has to be some sort of action
-
Apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive touching - it must be perceived
Garratt v. Dailey, 1955
Intentional Torts
F: D (five year old boy) pulled a lawn chair away as P was starting to sit down. She fell and broker her hip. Sued D for battery
I: Can a five-year old child be held liable for battery?
H: Yes. Burden on the P to show that D’s actions satisfied the elements of battery:
1) an intentional act done to cause a harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension of such contact to another person
2) without valid consent, and
3) without privilege.
D satisfied these elements. D didn’t need to intend for P to break her hip, just that he intended to remove the chair and was substantially certain that she would fall.
Intentional Torts ignores the age of the person - doesn’t matter as long as there is intent
- parents are not liable for their children’s tortious acts
Wishnatsky v. Huey, 1998
Intentional Torts
F: D was having a private conversation with another attorney. P attempted to enter the office and D pushed the door closed, pushing P out into the hallway. P brought a battery claim against P.
I: Where a plaintiff is unduly sensitive about his personal dignity, does a battery occur if a reasonable person wouldn’t be offended by it?
H: No. Offensive contact necessary to support a claim for battery must be such that it would offend a person with reasonable sense of personal dignity. This court clearly did not use the “eggshell plaintiff” rule here. In this case, D’s behavior was simply rude and arupt, but didn’t amount to battery.
Thyroff v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co, 2007
Intentional Torts - Property (Intangibles/Electronic)
F: P worked for D and P used D’s computer system for both work and had personal email and data stored on the system. P was terminated, but P wanted to get his information back.
I: May a P bring a cause of action for conversion where the D intentionally asserts dominion over the P’s intangible electronic computer data?
H: Yes. Flipped a long standing rule about conversion so that it culd be converted to electronic information. The Electronic data that D tried to keep was indistinguishable from printed documents.
Ex of Conversion: you go over to your neighbor’s house and borrow their shovel without asking (even though you think they’d be cool with it), you ahve committed a trespass to chattels.
Defenses for Battery
- Consent: If someone consents to a particular invasion, they can’t complain about it (sports from Hart v. Geysel)
- Self-Defense: Self-Defense can be defense for battery when the D feared for his safety and it was reasonable in the circumstances, the D acted honestly in using force, and the use of force was also reasonable. Courvosier v. Raymond.
- An owner of the premises may not willfully or intentionally injure a trespasser by means of force that either takes life or inflicts great injury, unless the trespasser was committing a felony of violence, a felony punishable by death , or where the trespasser was endangering human life by his act. Katko v. Briney
Hart v. Geysel, 1930
Intentional Torts
F: P died as a result of a blow received during an illegal prize fight with D. P’s estate sued D.
I: May a plaintiff who expressly consents to and engages in illegal prize fighting recover for damages sustained as a result of the combat?
H: No. No man shall be rewarded for his own wrongdoing.
For fights that involve anger (not this case):
Majority Rule: each party is civilly liable to each other for physical injury. The fact that parties voluntarily engaged in combat is not a defense
Minority Rule (adopted by Restatement): parties were acting unlawfully and will be denied relief in a civil action, unless there is a showing of excessive force or malicious intent to cause serious injury.
Courvoisier v. Raymond, 1896
Intentional Torts - Self-Defense
F: D owned a jewelry store and lived above it. Some men tried to break in, so D came down with his revolver to scare them off. They left the store but continued to harass him outside the store by throwing rocks. Police (not in uniform) attempted to intervene and D shot one of the cops, mistakenly thinking he was one of the robbers.
I: Can self-defense be alleged as a defense to liability for intentional torts?
H: Yes. It was a mistaken, but reasonable belief, that D was under attack.
Two Elements for Self-Defense:
1) There must be a good faith subjective belief that the D’s life is in danger
2) It needs to be reasonable in the circumstances
Katko v. Briney, 1971
Intentional Torts
F: Ds owned a farmhouse that was vacant. People kept breaking in to steal stuff, so D set up a shotgun trap in one of the bedrooms, where it was positioned to hit an intruder in the leg. P trespassed into the house to steal some antique jars and was shot in the leg. The spring gum couldn’t be seen from outside the bedroom and there was no warning indicating its presence.
I: May a person seeking to protect personal property against trespassers set a spring gun trap capable of causing death or serious bodily injury?
H: No. Can’t use force calculated to cause death or serious bodily injury - unless there’s a threat to your own personal safety. Court values life over property. Also awarded P punitive damages (even though he was committing a crime)
R: one may use reasonable force in the protection of property, but such right is subject to the qualification that it can’t be disproportionate.
Prima Facie Misrepresentation
- Misrepresentation of material fact (material is essential to the transaction, past or present fact)
- Communication of a present intention (statements of opinion and puffery are excluded)
- Knowledge of falsity or had a reckless disregard for finding the truth
- An intent to induce reliance
- Causation-where plaintiff’s reliance was induced
- Justifiable reliance (subjective test - take into account the characteristics of the particular P, but in negligent misrepresentation use reasonable person standard)
- Damages-benefit of the bargain, out of pocket expenses
Ollerman v. O’Rourke Co, 1980
Torts/Contracts Overlap
F: P purchased a vacant lot for D on which he intended to build a home. while excavating for the house, a well was uncapped, releasing water. P brought claims for intentional and negligent misrepresentation, claiming that D knew or should have known about the well, had a duty to disclose it, and failed to do so
I: Does a seller of a residential lot have a duty to disclose facts that are material to the transaction and which are not readily discernible by the buyer?
H: Yes. Seller’s silence was an intentional misrepresentation, but not a negligent misrepresentation. An intent to deceive and negligence are two separate concepts. An intent to deceive, in this case, calls for a knowledge standard and there is a narrow scope of liability for misrepresentation when it involves negligence
Requirements for Interference with Contractual Obligations
- Intent to interfere
- Know of the contract
- Must actually interfere
Imperial Ice Co v. Rossier, 1941
Torts/Contracts Overlap - Traynor
F: P had contract with Coker to distribute ice which contained a non-compete clause under which Coker agreed not to sell or distribute within the territory. Coker then started selling ice to D, P sought an injunction to stop D from inducing Coker to breach the contract.
I: May a P bring a cause of action where a D actively and intentionally induces a third party to breach his contract with the P?
H: Yes. P can bring this cause of action unless there is sufficient justification for the inducement by D.
Defense for inducing breach: to protect an interest that has greater social value than upholding the contract -if enforcement of the contract is injurious to health, safety, or good morals (doesn’t matter if done with ill-will or malice). NOT okay if they are just trying to gain an economic advantage (this case).
Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
Differs from interference with a contract (conduct to induce a breach) because it involves an action by the Ds to persuade others from not entering into a contract with the P in the first place.
