Torts Flashcards
intentional tort general requirmeents
Act (by D)
-volitional movement
Intent (by D)
-intent to bring about general consequences of tort but don’t need to intend the SPECIFIC INJURY that results
Causation
-substantial factor
is incapacity a defense to committing a tort?
no
transferred intent
When D intends to commit some tort against a person but instead:
-Commits a DIFFERENT tort against that person
-Commits the same tort but against a DIFFERENT person
-Commits a different tort against a different person
Intent is TRANSFERRED for purposes of est prima facie case
when does the doctrine of transferred intent apply (torts)
the INTENDED and ACTUAL tort must be….
-assault
-battery
-false imprisonment
-trespass to land
-trespass to chattels
CONVERSION not included, nor is outrageous behavior
battery
-harmful OR offensive contact (contact can be direct or indirect)
-w plaintiff’s person (anything connected to P)
what is the standard for offensive contact
reasonable person. unpermitted.
consent implied for ordinary contacts of daily life (bumped on bus)
assault elements
-reasonable apprehension (awareness; fear not required)
-of IMMEDIATE battery (need not know D’s identity) (If D has “apparent ability” to commit, sufficient [loaded gun])
words and assault
mere words generally not enough. must be coupled w conduct.
but words can NEGATE reasonable apprehension
1. conditional threat
2. words cast in future tense
false imprisonment elements
-act or omission that confines or restrains [irrelevant how short period of confinement is]
-P confined to bounded area [P must be aware they are confined] [bounded on all sides with NO REASONABLE MEANS OF ESCAPE KNOWN TO P] [reasonable = not disgusting, dangerous, humiliating, or hidden]
what does and does not constitute a bounded area
DOES
-physical barriers
-physical force
-threats of force (direct or indirect/implied)
-failure to release when under LEGAL DUTY (taxi/airplane w wheelchair lady)
-false arrest
DOESNT
-moral pressure
-future threats
IIED elements
-act that is extreme and outrageous
-P suffers SEVERE emotional distress
requires only RECKLESSNESS for intent
only intentional tort that requires damages
what type of conduct is extreme and outrageous
not mere insults
generally…
-continuous in nature
-committed by common carrier or innkeeper (here, mere insults may suffice)
-directed towards fragile plaintiff (or supersensitive adult if sensitive known to D)
IIED for bystander
When the defendant’s 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 facie 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 person; and (3) the defendant knew these
trespass to land elements
-physical invasion (by person or object; must be tangible; if intangible, nuisance)
-of real property (includes air + soil)
intent need only be to enter that particular piece of land; need not know the land belonged to someone else
trespass to chattels
-interferes w P’s right to possession
-smaller harm (damage or dispossession)
D’s mistaken belief that they own the chattel is no defense
conversion
-interferes w Ps right to possession
-interference is SERIOUS ENOUGH in nature or consequence to warrant D paying the FULL VALUE of the chattel (operates as forced sale) [theft, wrongful transfer, wrongful detention, severe damage/change]
mistake as to ownership is no defense
only physical stuff and intangibles reduces to physical form (like promissory note)
can recover damages (fair market at time of conversion) or possession
defenses to intentional tort (list)
-consent
-defense of person or property [threat must be coming from P]
-necessity
types of consent
-express
-implied [reasonable person could infer from 1. custom and usage or 2. body lang consent (P joins rugby game)] [OR when necessary to save person’s life or other important interest in person or prop]
capacity required
one cannot consent to criminal act
cannot exceed unreasonably consent
express consent exceptions
-mistake will undo if D knew of and took advantage of mistake
-consent induced by fraud if goes to ESSENTIAL matter (collateral ok)
-consent obtained by duress (unless only future threat)
self-defense against intentional torts
-if someone reasonably believes they are being attacked or are about to be attacked, can use as much force as reasonably necessary to protect against injury
-majority rule: no duty to retreat [tho modern law may req for deadly force unless inside home]
-not available to initial aggressor or one who escalates from non deadly to deadly
-may extend to 3d parties
-reasonable mistake OK
-only force reasonably necessary allowed [can’t bring a gun to a knife fight]
defense of third parties in intentional tort
same as self-defense
defense of property
-reasonable force
-but must request desist or leave prior unless would be futile or dangerous
-does not apply once tort committed except if in hot pursuit
-doesn’t apply if they have privilege to be there [necessity]
-no deadly force or serious bodily injury unless invasion of prop entails serious threat of bodily injury
shoplifting detentions
can avoid false imprisdonment claim
shopkeeper has privilege to detain suspected shoplifter for investigation but must have…
-reasonable belief of theft
-detention conducted in reasonably manner (no deadly force)
-detention only for reasonable time
necessity
-to public or private
-when reasonably and apparently necessary to avoid some injury and when injury is substantially more serious than the invasion that is undertaken to avert it
ONLY AVAILABLE FOR DEFENSE TO PROPERTY TORTS
