Tort - Intentional Torts (HIGH MENTAL FAULT WITH ACT) Flashcards
What are the 2 elements of assault?
Question
Two high school students, dressed as robbers for Halloween, were playing tag and chasing each other in the street outside of their dormitory. One of the students hid behind a shrub and waited to surprise the other. Before the other student appeared, an elderly woman passed the shrub. The student, hearing footsteps and thinking it was the other student, jumped in front of her and shouted, “Got you!” Before the student could touch her, the elderly woman shrieked and jumped backward. She dropped a bag of groceries but was otherwise unharmed. The woman sued the student for assault. Will the woman prevail in her suit against the student?
Answers
Yes, because the woman was placed in reasonable apprehension of imminent battery. Yes, because the student’s words, coupled with the act of jumping from the shrub, constituted an overt act. No, because the woman sustained no damages for which she could collect. No, because the student did not have the necessary intent to commit a tort.
Assualt
- D must intentionally(purpose or knowledge) place P in reasonable apprehension
- Tortious intent (higer fault req than negligent, a simple mistake isnt assault and unlike trespass the intent (purpose and knowledge) must be to cause apprehension (not with the intent to act like trespass) = D must act must be volitional and performed with intent (purpose or knowledge) to place someone in apprehension of imminent harm or offensive contact)
- Apprehension = knowledge of something;doesn’t need to be definitive, just reasonable and apparent (NB - P DOES NOT have to fear D to apprehension - - - P can actually be confident in his ability to protect himself) - P must have a reasonable apprehension of an immediate battery (which is an harmful/offensive contact)
- Mere words alone (without action/physical gesture) lack immediacy; need an overt act with words to constitute assault
- Note words can negate OTHERWISE valid immediacy (i.e. conditional words to negate a threat OR future intent words coupled with present ability [weapon] to harm)
NOTE: damages are not required (P can recover nominal damages)
Rationale:
Answer choice D is correct. An assault occurs when the defendant’s intentional overt act causes the plaintiff to experience reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery. The act must be volitional and performed with intent to place someone in apprehension of imminent harm or offensive contact. The doctrine of transferred intent applies to the tort of assault. Here, although the student startled the woman, who was reasonably frightened by the student’s actions, the student lacked tortious intent. Had the student intended to assault or commit battery against another person, the doctrine of transferred intent would have applied, but the facts do not suggest that the student had any intent to commit any sort of tort, and was merely playing a game of tag with a friend (he can be liable for negligent) Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the woman was placed in reasonable apprehension, this element alone does not suffice to prove a battery. Answer choice B is incorrect because, while an overt act is one of the elements of the tort of assault, it requires an intent to batter (or the transferred intent to commit a different intentional tort), which is not present here. Answer choice C is incorrect because no proof of harm is required; the plaintiff may recover nominal damages even though no actual damage occurred.
What are the 2 elements of battery?
1) The ∆ must intentionallycommit a harmful ORoffensive contact Intent = is satisfied as long as the ∆ knew with subsantial certainty that the harmful/offensive contact would take place Offensive = violates a reasonable sense of personal dignity(i.e. if it’s unpermitted by a person of ordinary sensitivity) 2) The contact must be with the π’s “person” “Person” includes anything that is connected to the π (what’s he’s holding, touching, etc) NOTE: damages are not required (π can recover nominal damages)
What is tortioustransferred intent?
As long as ∆ has requisite intent at beginning of an intentional tort, the intent req is satisfied even if a DIFFERENT PERSON gets hurt or a DIFFERENT TORT is committed
Which 5 intentional torts are subject to transferred intent docrtine?
Transferred intent may be invokes ONLY IF the tort INTENDED and the RESULTING tort are among these… assault battery false imprisonment tresspas to land trespass to chattels
What isintent?
Intent may EITHER be…. Specific =the goal in acting is to bring about specific consequences General = the actor knows with “substantial certainty” that specific consequences will result NOTE: Everyone is “capable” of forming intent…INCAPACITY IS NOT A DEFENSE (e.g. a minor can form requisite intent)
What are the 2 elements of false imprisonment?
1) The ∆ must commit act of restraint/confinement Sufficient restraint/confinement =(i) physical barriers; (ii) physical force; (iii) actionable threats of immediate force; (iv) failure to release; and (v) invalid use of legal authority Act of restraint only counts if π knows of it OR is harmed by it (if π is unaware AND unharmed, then there can be no tort c/a for false imprisonment) 2)The π must be confined in a bounded area An area is NOT bounded, if there is a reasonable way to escape that π can reasonably discover (If it’s disgusting, hidden, humiliating OR dangerous, then it’s NOT reasonable) Amt of time confined is IRRELEVANT NOTE: damages are not required (π can recover nominal damages)
What are the 3 elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)?
1)∆ must engage in outrageous conduct (intentionally OR recklessly) Outrageous conduct = “exceeds all bounds of decency tolerated in a civilized society” NOT outrageous = (i) mere insults; (ii) ∆ exercising his 1st Am rights Outrageous (factors) = (i) the conduct is repetitive/continusous; (ii) the ∆ is a common carrier (Amtrak) or an inkeeper (hotel) can be liable for “gross insults”; (iii) member of a certain fragile π (i.e. children, elderly, known pregnant women) 2)π must be severely distressed No specific evidence needs to be offered by π π DOESN’T need to exhibit physical symptoms from the distress BUTactual damages are necessary(π CAN’T recover nominal damages) 3) For 3d party bystander IIED, must prove: The π was present when the injury occured The π is a close relativeof the injured person; AND The ∆ knew that the π was present AND was a close relative to the injured person
What are the 2 elements of trespass to land?
1)The ∆ must commit an act of PHYSICAL invasion Physical Invasion = (i) physical entrance onto property; (ii) propelling/throwing/tossing something physical onto land; but NOT (iii) intangible forces (light, smells, sounds, etc) 2)The act must interfere w/ π’s exclusive possession of real property Real property = includes not only the surface BUT ALSO airspace and subterrain (at reasonable distances) The cause of action belongs to person in possession, not necessarily the owner (the lessee) NOTE: damages are not required (π can recover nominal damages)
What istrespass to chattels? (versus conversion?)
Question
A man knew that his brother’s most prized possession was his favorite hunting rifle. The man, who was very competitive with his brother, believed he would achieve more hunting success with a rifle as nice as his brother’s. One day when the brother was at work, the man went to the brother’s house and borrowed the rifle. The man took it hunting, fired one shot, and shot an eight-point buck. He returned the rifle to the brother’s house before the brother returned home from work. Later that night, the man told his brother that he had proved his theory about the rifle, and explained what he had done. The brother was furious, and sued the man for trespass to chattels. At trial, the brother testified that he was upset about the man’s use of his rifle. He did not provide other evidence of damages. Is the brother likely to prevail on his claim?
Answers
No, because the brother cannot show that the man’s interference caused him damages. No, because the man returned the rifle to the brother. Yes, because the man used or intermeddled with the brother’s chattel. Yes, because the brother need not prove actual damages.
Trespass to Chattle (- NOTE - D’s mistake as to ownership will not insulate from liability)
- D intentionally interferes with Ps right of possession in a chattel … Types of interferencefor trespass (either one) =
(i) using or intermeddling (directly damaging chattel) (in circumstances of use or intermeddling, P may recover only when there are ACTUAL DAMAGES and MAY get remedy for the diminution in value or the cost of repair).
or
(ii) dispossession (depriving P of lawful right to posses chattel (In a case of dispossession, a plaintiff may recover for:(i) the actual damages caused by the interference AND (ii) the loss of use and MAY get remedy for the diminution in value or the cost of repair.
Damages
- In circumstances of use or intermeddling, P may recover only when there are actual damages and MAY get remedy for the diminution in value or the cost of repair.
- In a case of dispossession, a P may recover for:
i) The actual damages caused by the interference; and
ii) The loss of use.
iii) and MAY get remedy for the diminution in value or the cost of repair. - NOTE - D’s mistake as to ownership will not insulate from liability
Conversion (is a aggravated trespass to chattle) - -
- D INTENTIONALLY commits an act (I) DEPRIVING P of possession of her chattel or (II) INTERFERING interfering with the P’s chattel in a manner so serious as to deprive the plaintiff of the use of the chattel for both cases
- P’s s damages are the chattel’s full value at the time of the conversion.
- Note - only personal property and intangibles that have been reduced to physical form (e.g., a promissory note) can be converted.
Intent
D must only intend to commit the act that interferes; intent to cause damage is not necessary. Mistake of law or fact is no defense (e.g., a purchaser of stolen goods is liable to the rightful owner).
- Note- Accidentally damaging the P’s ’s chattel is not conversion if the D had permission to use the property (might be negligent)
Interference
D interferes with the P’s chattel by exercising DOMINION OR CONTROL OVER IT … EX of acts of conversion include wrongful acquisition, transfer, or detention; substantially changing; severely damaging or destroying; or misusing the chattel.
Note that if the original acquisition of the chattel was not wrongful, then the P must demand the return of the chattel before she sues for conversion.
Factors of serious interference:
(i) the withholding pd;
(ii) the extent of the use/damage
NOTE: the damage remedy is for full market value (a forced sale) at the time of the CONVERSION and LOSS of USE
Damages The plaintiff may recover damages in the amount of the full value of the converted property at the time of the conversion. Alternatively, the plaintiff may bring an action for replevin to recover the chattel.
Rationale:
Answer choice A is correct. A defendant is liable for trespass to chattels if he intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s right of possession by either dispossessing the plaintiff of the chattel or using or intermeddling with the plaintiff’s chattel. In the case of dispossession, a plaintiff must prove damages by either the actual damages caused by the interference or the loss of use. In the case of use or intermeddling, the plaintiff must show actual damages. In this case, the brother cannot prove he suffered any damages. Accordingly, his claim will likely fail. Answer choice B is incorrect because a plaintiff may succeed on a trespass to chattels claim even if the chattel is returned, as long as the plaintiff can prove actual damages. Answer choice C is incorrect because a plaintiff must show actual damages, as well as interference with a plaintiff’s right of possession. Answer choice D is incorrect because a trespass to chattels plaintiff must show actual damages.
What is valid consent to an intentional tort?
1) Express consent= spoken/written “words” by π, giving ∆ permission to behave in a certain way Express consent is not a valid defense if obtained via fraud (as to essential matter), duress (threats);OR π’s mistake (if ∆ took advantage of that mistake) 2) Implied consent = two types… Apparent consent = consent based on ∆’s reasonable interpretation of π’s objective conduct/body language (NOTE: this applies ONLY to NORMAL contactinherent in sports, ordinary incidental contact like on a train, etc) Consent implied by law = arises when it’s necessary to save a person’s life (or other important interest in person or property) NOTE: incapcitated individuals (incompetents; drunks; etc) are DEEMED INCAPABLE of consent; BUT children can consent to an age appropriate invasion of their person NOTE: all consents have a scope, and if ∆ exceeds the scope, then he will be liable for the tort
When canself-defense excuse a ∆’s intentional tort? NOTE:NY distinction
1) When a ∆ reasonably believes that she is being OR is about to be attacked The threat must be in progress or imminent→can’t use self-defense to responded to completed intentional tort (i.e. revenge) A reasonable mistake as to the existence of the danger is allowed Generally NOT available to intital aggressor 2) When ∆ uses such force as reasonably necessary to protect against injury Can use up to deadly force if the circumstances necessitate it NY DISTINCTION: If there is a possibility of retreat, then you CAN’T use deadly force; UNLESS…(i) ∆ can’t retreat safely; (ii) ∆ is in his own house; (iii) ∆ is a police officer (or a person assisting a police officer)
When can defense of othersexcusea ∆’s intentional tort?
1) When a ∆ reasonably believes that a 3d partyis being OR is about to be attacked The threat must be in progress or imminent»_space;can’t use defense of others to responded to completed intentional tort (i.e. revenge) A reasonable mistake as to the existence of the danger to 3d partyis allowed 2) When ∆ believes that the 3d party could have used force to defend himself Can use as much force as he could have used in self-defense if he were the one threatened with injury
When can defense of propertyexcuse toa ∆’s intentional tort?
One may use reasonable force (but NOT deadly force)to prevent the commision of tort against her real or personal property E.g., Asecurity guard’s privilege to use REASONABLE force in detaining suspects (defense to false imprisonment) OR in attempting arrest (assault) A request to desist or leave must first be made (UNLESS futile) The threat must be in progress (∆’s defense will be in hot pursuit) or imminent→can’t use defense of property to responded to completed intentional tort (i.e. revenge) A reasonable mistake as to whether an interference has occured is allowed; NOTE: mistake is NOT ALLOWED when π’s interference is privileged (e.g. necessity)
When can private necessityexcuse toa ∆’s intentional tort to property (land, chattels, conversion)?
If there is an emergency, which requires protection of∆’sprivate interest The ∆ IS liable for actual damages to π’s property, BUT is not liable for nominal/punitive damages As long as the emergency continues, the ∆ CANNOT be expelled, evicted or ejected; there is a “right of sanctuary”
When can public necessityexcuse toa ∆’s intentional tort to property (land, chattels, conversion)?
If there is an emergency, which requires protection of thecommunity as a whole or a significant group of ppl The ∆ IS NOT liable for actual damages, nominal or punitive damages w/r/tto π’s property As long as the emergency continues, the ∆ CANNOT be expelled, evicted or ejected; there is a “right of sanctuary”
