Torts Flashcards
Prima Facie Case for Intentional Torts
All intentional torts require an act by the defendant, intent by the defendant to bring about some physical or mental effect upon another person, and the effect must have been legally caused by the defendant’s act or set in motion by the defendant.
Transferred Intent
Transferred intent will provide the requisite intent when the defendant held the necessary intent with respect to one person but instead commits a different tort against that person or any other person, or commits the intended tort against a different person.
Note - transferred intent cannot be invoked with intentional torts of IIED or converstion
Causation
Causation is the effect legally caused by the defendant’s act or some action that is set in motion by the defendant.
Intent
Intent can be achieved by either direct intent when the defendant has a desire or purpose to bring about the effect, or indirectly when the defendant knows with substantial certainty that a particular effect will occur.
Specific vs General Intent
Specific intent = when a tortfeasor intended to achieve a particular result by committing the crime/tort
General intent = when a person exhibits an actual intent to perform some act, but without a desire for the consequences that result from that act
Battery
Battery is an intentional infliction of harmful or offensive bodily contact.
- Intent can be desire/purpose or knowledge with substantial certainty
- Harmful touching encompasses touching that causes pain or bodily damage; offensive touching is that which offends a reasonable person’s sense of dignity
- Contact can be direct or indirect and includes contact with an object closely identified with the plaintiff’s body
Assault
Assault is the intentional causing of an apprehension of an imminent bodily harm or offensive contact.
- Intent can be desire/purpose or knowledge with substantial certainty
- Causing apprehension of means the plaintiff must be aware of the threat
- Imminent means the defendant must have the apparent present ability to carry out the threat
- Harmful contact encompasses touching that causes pain or bodily damage; offensive touching is that which offends a reasonable person’s sense of dignity
Intentional Infliction of Emotional distress
IIED is the intentional or reckless infliction of severe emotional or mental distress caused by the defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct.
- Intent can be satisfied with desire/purpose, knowledge with substantial certainty, or reckless disregard
- The plaintiff must suffer severe emotional distress, though bodily harm is not required
- Extreme and outrageous conduct is that which is beyond the bounds of human decency
Third-Person Liability for IIED
Third-person liability for IIED occurs where the defendant intentionally or recklessly directs extreme and outrageous conduct at someone other than the plaintiff, but the plaintiff can recover for IIED. The defendant will be liable to any close relative also present (the defendant must be aware of their presence), or anyone else present who suffers a physical harm as a result of the emotional distress (e.g., heart attack).
False Imprisonment
False imprisonment occurs where the defendant intentionally causes the plaintiff to be confined, restrained, or detained to a bounded area with no reasonable means of escape, of which the plaintiff is either aware of or harmed.
- Intent can be either desire/purpose or with knowledge of substantial certainty
- Confined, restrained, or detained
- Bounded area
- No reasonable means of escape
- Plaintiff must be aware of the confinement or harmed by it
Trespass to Land
Trespass to land is the intentional physical invasion of the land of another.
- Intent can be satisfied by desire/purpose; invading land of another thinking its your own is no defense
- Physical invasion does not require the land be harmed and can include placing or projecting an object onto someone else’s land without permission
- Real property of another
Trespass to Chattels
Trespass to chattels is an intentional interference with a person’s use or possession of a chattel.
- Intent can be satisfied with desire/purpose; mistake that you own the chattel is no defense
- Interference with use or possession
- Chattel = personal property
- Measure of damages is chattel’s loss of value caused by loss of use
Conversion
Conversion is an intentional interference with the plaintiff’s possession or ownership of property that is so substantial it warrants requiring the defendant to pay the property’s full market value.
- Intent can be satisfied with desire/purpose; mistake of ownership not an excuse
- Substantial interference includes takes possession, transfers possession, refuses to return/destroys a chattel
- Chattel is personal property
- Damages is full market value at time of conversion
Name the Intentional Torts
Battery, Assault, Trespass to Land/Chattels, IIED, False Imprisonment
Name the Defenses to Intentional Torts
Consent, Self-Defense, Defense of Others, Defense of Property, Recapture of Chattels, Shopkeeper’s Privilege, Necessity
Consent
Plaintiff consents to the defendant’s conduct. Consent can be express or implied.
Self-Defense
A person is entitled to use reasonable force to prevent any threatened harmful or offensive bodily contact or any threatened confinement or imprisonment.
Defense of Others
A person may use reasonable force to defend another person when he reasonably believes that person would be entitled to defend himself.
Defense of Property
A person may use reasonable force to defend his real or personal property. The defendant must first make a verbal warning unless it would be futile or dangerous.
Recapture of Chattels
A property owner has the general right to use reasonable force to regain possession of chattels taken by someone else. The property owner must be in fresh pursuit, and deadly force is never allowed.
Shopkeeper’s Privilege
Shopkeepers have a privilege to temporarily detain individuals whom they reasonably believe are in possession of shoplifted goods.
Necessity
A person may interfere with the real or personal property of another when it is reasonably and apparently necessary to prevent great harm.
Public necessity applies when the threatened harm was to the community at large, and no compensation for damage is owed.
Private necessity applies when a person acts to prevent injury to himself or his property, and compensation for actual damages is owed.
Negligence
Negligence requires a showing of duty, breach, actual and proximate cause, and damages.
Headings:
Duty
Breach
Actual Cause
Proximate Cause
Damages
Duty (Negligence)
Foreseeable Plaintiff
A duty is owed to all foreseeable plaintiffs. Under the majority rule, a foreseeable plaintiff is one who is in the zone of danger. Under the minority view, a defendant owes a duty to everyone, including unforeseeable plaintiffs.
Standard of Care - RPP
A person has a duty to act as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances, unless a special duty of care applies.
Note - if another standard of care applies, such as negligence per se, professionals, children, landowner, etc. they are their own heading under Duty
SOC - Negligence Per Se
A statute may set forth the applicable standard of care. In order for an individual to be held to the standard of care set forth in a statute, there must be a statute mandating a specific duty, the plaintiff must prove they are within the class of persons the statute is designed to protect, and they suffered the type of injury the statute seeks to protect against.
Protected Person
Protected Injury
Remember, negligence per se only establishes duty and breach (plaintiff must still prove causation and damages); compliance with a statute does not itself establish the defendant was not negligent
SOC - Professionals
Professionals are required to possess the knowledge and skill of a member in their profession and occupation in good standing.
SOC - Children
Children have a duty to conform to the conduct of a child of like age, intelligence, and experience, unless engaged in an adult activity.
SOC - Land Owner
The standard of care for a landowner depends on whether the plaintiff is a trespasser, invitee, or licensee.
Attractive Nuisance Doctrine
A landowner must exercise ordinary care to avoid foreseeable injury to children if:
1. the owner knew or should have known that the area is one where children trespass;
2. the condition poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious injury;
3. the children do not discover the risk due to their youth;
4. the benefit to the owner and expense to remedy the condition is slight compared to the risk; and
5. the owner fails to use reasonable care to eliminate the danger.
Trespassers (SOC - Landowner)
A landowner generally owes no duty to make the land safe or warn of dangerous conditions to undiscovered trespassers or invitees/licensees that go beyond the scope of their invitation. However, there is a duty to warn known or frequent trespassers of known dangers and artificial conditions that pose a risk of death or serious bodily harm.
Invitee (SOC - Landowner)
An invitee is one who enters the land in response to an invitation by the owner to do business with the owner or as a public invitee for land open to the public at large. The owner has a duty to reasonably inspect for hidden dangers and take affirmative action to remedy a dangerous condition by making repairs.
Licensee (SOC - Landowner)
A licensee is one who enters the land with the owner’s consent for his own purpose. An owner has a duty to warn of all known dangerous conditions that create an unreasonable risk of harm that the licensee is unlikely to discover; however, there is no duty to repair or inspect.
SOC - Landlord-Tenant
A tenant has a general duty to maintain the premises and must abide by the same duties owed as land owners. In addition to the duties owed by a landowner, a landlord must also warn of existing dangers which he knows or should know that the tenant is not likely to discover, make repairs not negligently, and maintain common areas.