Torts Flashcards
Intentional Torts Concepts
Act by defendant.
This is a volitional movement by defendant.
Intent.
Either specific (the goal in acting is to bring about specific consequences) or general (the actor knows with substantial certainty that these consequences will result).
Causation
The result must have been legally caused by defendant’s act or something set in motion by the defendant. Causation is satisfied if defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.
Transferred Intent
This doctrine applies when the defendant intends to commit a tort against one person but instead
(i) commits a different tort against that person;
(ii) commits the same tort as intended but against a different person; or
(iii) commits a different tort against a different person.
In such cases, the intent to commit a certain tort against one person is transferred to the tort actually committed or to the person actually injured for purposes of establishing a prima facie case.
Limitations on use of Transferred Intent Doctrine – it may be invoked only if both the tort intended and the tort that results are one of the following: Assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, or trespass to chattels.
Exam Tip: Incapacity
Everyone is capable of intent. Incapacity is not a good defense. So even minors and people who are mentally incompetent will be liable for intentional torts.
Battery
(1) Harmful or offensive contact;
Judged by a reasonable person standard.
Exam tip: Contact is considered offensive only if it has not been consented to. Consent will be implied for the ordinary contacts of everyday life.
Contact can be direct or indirect contact.
(2) To plaintiff’s person;
This includes anything connected to the plaintiff.
(3) Intent; and
(4) Causation
Assault
(1) An act by defendant creating a reasonable apprehension in plaintiff;
Apprehension should not be confused with fear or intimidation.
If the defendant has the apparent ability to commit a battery, this will be enough to cause reasonable apprehension.
Words alone are not sufficient. For the defendant to be liable, the words must be coupled with conduct. However, words can negate reasonable apprehension.
(2) Of immediate harmful or offensive contact to plaintiff’s person;
Plaintiff must be apprehensive that she is about to become the victim of an immediate battery.
(3) Intent; and
(4) Causation
False Imprisonment
(1) An act or omission on the part of the defendant that confines or restrains plaintiff;
Sufficient methods of restraint include: physical barriers, physical force, threats of force, failure to release, and invalid use of legal authority.
Insufficient methods of restraint include: moral pressure and future threats.
It is irrelevant how short the period of confinement is.
Plaintiff must be aware of the confinement or harmed by it.
(2) To a bounded area;
Freedom of movement must be limited.
There must be no reasonable means of escape known to the plaintiff.
(3) Intent; and
(4) Causation
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(1) An act by defendant that amounts to extreme and outrageous conduct;
Conduct that exceeds all bounds of decency in a civilized society.
Four hallmarks of outrageousness:
When the behavior takes place in public rather than in private;
When the conduct is continuous and repetitive;
When defendant is a common carrier or innkeeper, the level of outrageousness is much less.
Plaintiff is a member of a fragile class of persons (young children, elderly, pregnant woman but only if she is obviously pregnant).
Hypersensitive persons are not covered, unless defendant knew of the hypersensitivity. Deliberate targeting of one’s hypersensitivity is considered outrageous conduct.
(2) Intent or recklessness;
(3) Causation; and
(4) Damages
Actual damages (severe emotional distress) are required. Proof of physical injury is not required. The more outrageous the conduct, the less proof that damages are required.
Trespass to Land
(1) Physical invasion to plaintiff’s real property;
The invasion may be a person or object. It must be tangible.
Real property includes not only the surface, but also the airspace and the subterranean space for a reasonable distance.
(2) Intent;
Defendant need intend only to enter on that particular piece of land (he need not know that the land belonged to another).
(3) Causation
Trespass to Chattels
(1) An act by defendant that interferes with plaintiff’s right of possession in a chattel;
There are two types of interference: intermeddling (ie., directly damaging the chattel); or a dispossession (ie., depriving plaintiff of his lawful right of possession of the chattel).
(2) Intent;
(3) Causation;
(4) Damages
Actual damages - not necessarily to the chattel, but at least to a possessory right – are required.
Remedy: Recovery of actual damages from harm to chattel or loss of use (if dispossession, damages based on rental value).
Conversion
(1) An act by defendant that interferes with plaintiff’s right of possession in a chattel;
(2) The interference is so serious that it warrants requiring defendant to play the chattel’s full value;
The longer the withholding period and the more extensive the use, the more likely it is to be conversion. A less serious interference is trespass to chattels.
(3) Intent; and
(4) Causation.
**Only tangible personal property and intangibles that have been reduced to physical form may be the subject matter of conversion.
Remedy: Plaintiff may recover damages (fair market value at the time of the conversion) or possession (replevin).
Defenses to Intentional Torts: Consent
Plaintiff’s consent to a defendant’s conduct. Two questions:
(1) Was there valid consent (e.g., no fraud)?
(2) Did the defendant stay within the boundaries of the consent?
Express consent: Defendant is not liable if plaintiff expressly consents to defendant’s conduct.
Implied consent: Reasonable person would infer from custom and usage or plaintiff’s conduct.
Capacity is required: Individuals without capacity are incapable of giving consent (e.g., incompetents, intoxicated persons, minors).
The requirement for capacity differs from the rule for the intent element of intentional torts, where incapacity is no defense – everyone has a the capacity to commit a tort, but not everyone has capacity to consent to a tort. If a defendant exceeds the scope of consent, he may lose the defense.
Self-Defense, Defense of Others and Defense of Property
(1) Is the privilege available? The tort must be or about to be committed (imminent). Already committed torts do not qualify.
(2) Is a mistake permissible as to whether the tort being defended against is actually being committed?
(3) Was a proper amount of force used?
Self-Defense
When a person reasonably believes they are about to be attacked, they may use such force as is reasonably necessary to protect against injury.
A reasonable mistake as to the existence of the danger is allowed.
One may use only that force that reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the harm. If more force than is reasonably necessary is used, the defense is lost.
Defense of Others
One may use force to defend another when the actor reasonably believes that the other person could have used forced to defend himself.
A reasonable mistake as to whether the other person is being attacked or has a right to defend himself if permitted.
The defender may use as much forced as he could have used in self-defense if the injury were threatened to him.
Defense of Property
One may use reasonable force to prevent the commission of a tort against her real or personal property. A request to desist or leave must first be made unless it would be futile or dangerous. The defense does not apply once the tort has been committed.
One may use force in hot pursuit of another who has tortiously dispossessed the owner of her chattels because the tort is viewed as still being committed.
A reasonable mistake is allowed as to whether an intrusion has occurred or whether a request to desist is required.
Reasonable force may be used. Deadly force cannot be used to protect property.
Exam tip: this defense is not available against one with a privilege. Whenever an actor has a privilege to enter on the land of another because of necessity, recapture of chattels, etc, that privilege will supercede the privilege of the land possessor to defend her property. Mistake is not allowed as to whether an entrant has a privilege that supercedes the defense of property right.
Shopkeeper’s privilege: May detain for a reasonable period of time individuals whom they reasonable believe to be in possession of shoplifted goods.
