IT Cases Flashcards

1
Q

Brown (1850) (intent)

A

established intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Cohen (negligence)

A

defendant hit with sudden, unanticipated illness not liable for battery in resulting car crash

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Spano (strict liability)

A

established strict liability with blasting

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Garratt (intent)

A

kid pulling chair out from under woman

intent is subjective; kids can have intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Wagner v. State (intent)

A

mentally ill ward of state injured someone, not able to cognize intent to harm
holding: single-intent (as long as intent was to make contact, there does not have to be intent to harm)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Ranson v. Kitner (intent)

A

mistake does not negate intent (shot dog while hunting wolves)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

McGuire v. Almy (intent)

A

mental illness does not negate intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Talmage v. Smith (Intent)

A

Intent can transfer between people (and between ITs)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Cole v. Turner (battery 1704)

A

defines battery

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Wallace v. Rosen (battery)

A

(school fire alarm, stair fall) harmful and offensive touching is objective; crowded world theory of ordinary contact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Fisher v. Carousel Motor (battery)

A

(thrown plate with racist epithets) harmful and offensive touching of effects can be battery

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

1348 assault barn/inn case

A

establishes assault

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Western Union Telegraph v. Hill (assault)

A

there must be apparent present ability to conduct harm (debate of whether the man could have reached far enough over counter to grab woman he was sexually harassing)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Big Town Nursing Home (FI)

A

outlines elements of FI

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Parvi v. City of Kingston (FI)

A

(drunk dude suffered memory loss from accident) lack of later recollection does not negate FI (conscious in the present moment of confinement)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Hardy v. LaBelle’s Distributing Co (FI)

A

(employee questioned in room over alleged theft) words and emotional motivation alone cannot constitute FI (fear of losing a job doesn’t render behavior involuntary)

17
Q

Enright v. Groves (FI)

A

(Dog leash and ID case) FI can result from an arrest made without the proper legal authority

18
Q

Whittaker v. Sandford

A

(yacht) denial of necessary transport out of a sufficiently isolated place constitutes physical restraint for FI

19
Q

State Rubbish Collectors (IIED)

A

duress can be IIED when it causes evident and severe mental suffering

20
Q

Slocum (IIED)

A

(woman claims verbal insults caused her ed and heart attack). IIED governed by objective standard of conduct. The language must exceed all bounds which can be tolerated by society.

21
Q

Harris v. Jones (IIED)

A

there must be a concrete measure of the emotional distress for IIED (guys worsening stutter isn’t enough since he already had a nervous disposition)

22
Q

Taylor v. Vallelunga (IIED)

A

(daughter saw V beat up her dad, he didn’t know she was there) must be intentional to be IIED

23
Q

Dougherty v. Stepp (ToL)

A

no damages required for trespass to land

24
Q

Herrin v. Sutherland (ToL)

A

disturbing enjoyment of land can be trespass to land

25
Q

Rogers v. Board of Road (ToL)

A

(D left equipment behind after repairs, P’s plough struck the metal and killed him) the consequences of trespass can exceed what is foreseeable; once consent for entering land expires it becomes trespass to land

26
Q

Glidden v. Szybiak (ToC)

A

there must be actual damage for trespass to chattels when intermeddling

27
Q

CompuServe (ToC)

A

(spam email group using P’s email list to spam its customers) electronic signals can constitute physical intermeddling for trespass to chattels

28
Q

Pearson v. Dodd (Conversion)

A

(D made copies of P’s papers without P’s consent) must substantially interrupt usage to be conversion unless information is protected (creative or sellable product)