Torts Flashcards
Battery
Defendant must cause a harmful or offensive contact with the P’s person.
elements: intent harmful or offensive conduct against the plaintiffs person causation
harmful: traditional definition of harmful
Offensive: think unpermitted, or not consented to by a person of ordinary sensitivity. consent is implied for the ordinary contacts of everyday life.
Person is anything connected to the P at the time. Slapping a horse’s ass is a batter bc it’s connected to the person.
Act by Defendant
act must be volitional movement
specific intent
the purpose in acting is to bring about specific consequences
general intent
actor know with substantial certainty that these consequences will result.
damages for battery and assault
doesn’t have to include damages bc plaintiff can recover nominal damages even without actual damages.
if it’s malicious then they can recover punitive damages.
Contact that occurs later
Contact that occurs later can still be a battery. Even after a delay.
Assault
Intent,
causation,
Reasonable apprehension,
in fear of an immediate battery .
Reasonable apprehension
Plaintiff must have KNOWLEDGE of the imminent harmful or offensive contact and must be a reasonable one.
if you are oblivious then you can’t be assaulted. sleeping people can’t be assaulted.
Don’t confuse it with fear or intimidation. A weakling can cause a bully to apprehend offensive contact for purposes of assault. bully isn’t scared but prepared to be hit with a stick.
words alone are never enough to lead to an assault. they lack immediacy there has to be some conduct.
Unloaded gun problem
it’s a bluff, threatening to conduct a battery on the P.
If P knows it’s a bluff then there’s no battery and therefore there is no assault.
If P doesn’t know that it’s a bluff and reasonably expects the threat then the D will be liable for assault.
Transfered intent
D intends to commit a tort against one person but instead
- commits a different tort against the person,
- commits the same tort as intended but against a different person
- commits a different tort against a different person.
intent to commit a certain tort against one person can be transferred to another person who was assaulted.
False imprisonment
Elements
1.There must be an act of restraint by the defendant, (Restraint is the element, can be both a battery and holding down a person, can be as simple as a threat, can be an omission as well),
- that confines a plaintiff to a bounded area
- intent
- causation
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
- extreme and outrageous conduct
- intent or recklessness,
- causation, and
- Severe emotional distress- damages
extreme and outrageous conduct
If it exceeds all bounds of decency tolerated in a civilized society
can never be near insults.
if it’s conduct not normally deemed outrageous then it can be extreme and outrageous if it’s
- continuous in nature,
- it is directed toward a certain type of plaintiff (children, elderly, pregnant women), OR
- it is committed by a certain type of defendant (common carriers [delta, amtrack] , innkeepers all are required to be courteous, they are special insults are enough).
If you know of D’s idiosyncrasy and target it here then it’s outrageous. (can’t take advantage of their Achilles heel.)
damages- Intentional infliction of emotional distress
actual damages are required (severe emotional distress), NOT nominal damages. proof of physical manifestation not required. The more outrageous the less proof of damages required.
severe emotional stress
no particular KIND of evidence can be whatever you want.
Trespass to land
- an act of physical invasion (two ways: first intentional entry on the land knowing. you are on someone elses property, second even if you are unaware that you crossed the line and are on someone else’s land, CAN BE YOU THREW SOMETHING TANGIBLE ON THE LAND).
- of land (includes, air, and soil out to. areasonable distance a kite that flys over is a trespass)
- intent (The only intent is that you deliberately got to that land you are on, horse got scared and you cant stop it from going on the land that’s not intent)
- causation
Plaintiffs- trespass to land
anyone in actual or constructive possession of the land may maintain the action.
Trespass to land- damages
plaintiff can recover without showing actual injury to the land.
Trespass to chattels and conversion
- An act by D that interferes with P’s right of possession in chattel;
- Intent
- causation,
- damages
types of interference:
- intermeddling (directly damaging) Vandalism
- dispossession: (depriving P of his lawful right of possession of the chattel) Theft
Intent: mistaken belief of ownership is not a defense to trespass to chattel.
conversion you have to have to have the intent to do the act that interferes with the P’s right of possession.
Conversion damages
You get the “fair market value at the time of conversion” or replevin (possession). Operates as a forced sale, you break it you buy it
Trespass to chattels v.s conversion
if the harm is small then you argue trespass to chattels, if harm is BIG conversion.
Crops aren’t personal property until they are cut from the land until then they are part of the land.
Trespass to chattel damages
are actual damages and not necessarily to the chattel, but at least to a possessory right- are required.
Consent as a defense
P’s consent to defendant’s conduct is a defense, but the majority view is that one cannot consent to a criminal act.
There are two inquiries:
1. was there valid consent (no fraud)?
2. Did the D stay within the boundaries of the consent? (no gun at boxing match
Consent capacity
individuals without cappacity are deemed incapable of consent.
Requirement for capacity differs from the rule for the intent element of intentional torts, where incapacity is no defense. Evey person even kids have the capacity to commit a tort, but to consent to the tort