Torts Flashcards
To establish a PFC for ANY intentional tort, what must P prove?
- An act by D
- Intent by D
- Causation of the result to P from D’s act
When does the transferred intent doctrine apply?
When D:
- Commits a different tort against that person;
- Commits the same tort as intended but against a different person; OR
- Commits a different tort against a different person
What are the 7 intentional torts?
TO PERSON:
1. Battery
2. Assault
3. False Imprisonment
4. IIED
TO LAND:
5. Trespass to Land
6. Trespass to Chattels
7. Conversion
The requisite intent for intentional torts (such as battery) is satisfied:
If the actor knows with substantial certainty that the consequences of her conduct will result.
Battery elements?
- Harmful or offensive contact
- (offensive to a reasonable person) - With P’s person
- (includes anything P is holding or touching)
- (can be indirect, like setting a trap) - Intent
- Causation
Assault elements?
- Act by D creating reasonable apprehension in P
- (P must be aware)
- (fear not required)
- (apparent ability sufficient) - of an immediate battery
- (words alone lack immediacy, need overt action)
- (BUT words can destroy immediacy) - Intent
- Causation
(Damages not required)
False Imprisonment elements?
- An act or omission of restraint
- (threats can be restraint)
- (P must be aware) - P confined in bounded area
- (not bounded if reasonable means of escape that P can reasonably discover) - Intent
- Causation
(Damages not required)
IIED elements?
- Extreme and outrageous conduct (exceeds all bounds of decency tolerated in a civilized society)
- (mere insults not outrageous) - P suffered severe emotional distress
- (can prove however you want to, leave to jury) - Intent
- Causation
Actual damages (severe emotional distress), not nominal damages, are required.
Conduct that is not normally outrageous may become so if:
Conduct that is not normally outrageous may become so if:
- Repetitive
- D is common carrier or innkeeper
- P member of fragile class (children, elderly, pregnant, sensitive adult if sensitivities known to D)
Trespass to land elements?
- Physical invasion
- (by person or object)
- (awareness of boundary not needed)
- (deliberate act required)
- (must be tangible, otherwise could be nuisance, not trespass) - of land
- (includes air/soil to reasonable distance) - Intent
- Causation
(Damages not required)
Trespass to chattels elements/definition?
- Act by D that interferes with P’s right of possession in a chattel.
- (personal property)
- (interference can be damage or depriving possession)
- (intent to do act of interference is all that’s required) - Intent
- Causation
Actual damages required - not necessarily to a chattel, but at least to a possessory right - are required.
NOTE: if interference is serious enough to warrant D paying chattel’s full value, tort is conversion.
Conversion elements/definition?
- Act by D that interferes with P’s right of possession in a chattel
- (personal property)
- (interference can be damage or depriving possession)
- (intent to do act of interference is all that’s required) - Interference serious enough to warrant D paying chattel’s full value
- Intent
- Causation
Actual damages required - not necessarily to a chattel, but at least to a possessory right - are required.
NOTE: if less than full value, tort is trespass to chattels.
What are the 3 main defenses against intentional torts?
- Consent
- Protective Privileges
- Self defense
- Defense of others
- Defense of property - Necessity
- Public necessity
- Private necessity
How to show consent as defense to intentional tort?
- Was there valid consent?
- (fraud/duress voids express consent) - Did D stay within the boundaries of consent?
Note implied consent:
- implied by custom and usage
- Body language consent/reasonable conduct interpretation consent
What are the protective privileges available for defense in claim for intentional tort, and their analysis?
- Self-defense
- D reasonably believes they are about to be attacked
- no duty to retreat - Defense of others
- must reasonably believe the other could have used force to defend themselves - Defense of property
- no use of deadly force
- no self-help for reentry onto land
Must have:
1. Proper timing
2. Reasonable accuracy/belief
May force be used in the recapture of chattels?
- When another’s possession began lawfully: NO;
- Reasonable force may be used to recapture a chattel only when in hot pursuit of one who has obtained possession wrongfully, for example, by theft.
What are public and private necessity, and how are they applied as defenses to intentional torts?
Public necessity: D acts in emergency to protect community
- absolute defense
Private necessity: D acts in emergency to protect own interests
- Limited defense
– Must pay compensatory damages
– But not liable for nominal/punitive damages (think trespass to land, don’t break anything)
– can remain as long as emergency continues
When does the shopkeeper’s privilege apply?
- must be reasonable belief as to fact of theft
- detention conducted in a reasonable manner, only nondeadly force allowed
- detention for a reasonable period of time, only for investigation
Negligence elements?
- Duty
- Breach
- Causation
- factual
- proximate - Damages
Regarding negligence, to whom do you owe a duty?
- Foreseeable victims
- Within the “zone of danger”
Are rescuers foreseeable plaintiffs?
Yes, when D negligently put themselves or a third person in peril. Rescuers are owed a duty of care.
Is a 3rd party for whose economic benefit a legal or business transaction was made (like the beneficiary of a will) a foreseeable plaintiff?
Yes.
Regarding negligence, what is the standard of care?
The “reasonably prudent person.”
- hypothetical person
- no allowance for D’s shortcomings
- objective standard
Regarding negligence, what is the effect on the standard of care owed when the D has superior skill or knowledge?
Hypothetical reasonably prudent person with the same superior skill or knowledge.
Regarding negligence, what is the effect on the standard of care owed when the D has a relevant physical characteristic, like being blind or deaf?
The “reasonably prudent person” is considered to have the same physical characteristics as D if those physical characteristics are relevant to the claim.
Note: e.g., blind person should act like reasonably prudent blind person – e.g., no driving cars!