Torts Flashcards
Battery
- D causes harmful or offensive contact with person of another
- Acts with intent to cause the contact or apprehension of such contact (i.e., desires to bring about harm or knows that it is substantially certain to occur)
Transferred intent applies
Reasonable person standard
Eggshell plaintiff rule
D is L for all harm that flows from battery, even if it is much worse than he expected it to be
Assault
- P’s reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful of offensive contact
- D must intend to cause either apprehension of contact or contact itself
- Mere words not enough; need words + circumstances
- P must be aware of D’s act
Transferred intent applies
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
- Extreme or outrageous conduct intentionally causing severe emotional distress
- D must intend to cause or act with recklessness of causing such distress
D who directs his conduct at third-party victim can also be L to
- Victim’s immediate family member who is present at time of conduct
- Bystander who is present at time of conduct and who suffers distress that results in bodily injury
False imprisonment
- D intends to confine or restrain another within fixed boundaries;
- Actions directly or indirectly result in confinement; and
- P is conscious of confinement or harmed by it
Intent – purposeful act or knowing confinement is substantially certain to result
Shopkeeper’s privilege
Shopkeeper can, for reasonable time and in reasonable manner, detain suspected shoplifter
Defenses
- Consent
- Self-defense
- Defense of others
- Defense of property
- Parental discipline
- Privilege of arrest
- Private citizen
a. Felony – has been committed and reasonable grounds to believe suspect committed it
b. Misdemeanor – has been or reasonably appears that it will be committed in his presence and is breach of the peace
- Police officer
a. Felony – same standard as private citizen
b. Misdemeanor – has been or reasonably appears that it will be committed in his presence
Trespass to chattel
Intentional interference with P’s right of possession by either
- Dispossessing or
- Using or intermeddling with P’s chattel
Only intent to do the act is necessary; transferred intent applies
Damages – actual, loss of use, or cost of repair
Conversion
D intentionally commits act depriving P of possession of his chattel or interfering with P’s chattel in manner so serious as to deprive him entirely of use of it
Only intent to commit the interfering act is necessary
Damages – full value of property at time of conversion
Comparing trespass to chattels to conversion
Courts consider
- Duration and extent of interference;
- D’s intent to assert right inconsistent with rightful possessor;
- D’s good faith;
- Expense of inconvenience to P; and
- Extent of harm
Trespass to land
D intentionally causes physical invasion of someone else’s land
Only intent to enter land or cause physical invasion
P can be anyone in actual or constructive possession of land
Necessity defense
Private – qualified privilege to protect an interest of D if reasonably necessary to protect from injury; L for actual damages
Public – absolute privilege to intrude upon private property to protect a large number of people from public calamities (e.g., spread of fire or disease); not L for damages
Private nuisance
Substantial and unreasonable interference with another’s use or enjoyment of his land
- Substantial = offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to the average person
- Unreasonable = injury outweighs utility
Defenses
- Regulatory compliance – incomplete defense
- Coming to the nuisance – does not entitle D to judgment as matter of law but jury may consider
Public nuisance
Unreasonable interference with right common to general public
Cannot recover unless individual has been harmed in special or unique way, different from public
Negligence – elements
Failure to exercise care a reasonable person would exercise (i.e., to prevent foreseeable risk of harm to anyone in P’s position)
Elements
- Duty
- Breach
- Causation
- Damages
Duty
Owed to all foreseeable persons who may be injured by D’s failure to meet reasonable standard of care
Failure to act – generally, no duty to act
- Exceptions: assumption of duty; placing another in peril; by K; by relationship (e.g., employer-employee, parent-child)
Negligence – standard of care
Reasonably prudent person standard –objective
Evidence of custom – admissible but not conclusive in establishing proper standard of care
- Physicians – traditional rule is “same or similar locale” standard; many changing to national standard
Negligence per se
Criminal or regulatory statute imposes a specific duty for protection of others
- D neglects to perform that duty
- D liable to anyone in class of people intended to be protected by statute
- For harm of the type stature was intended to protect against
- That were proximately caused by D’s violation
Defenses
- Compliance impossible or more dangerous than noncompliance
- Violation reasonable under the circumstances (IL DIS)
- Statutory vagueness or ambiguity
Standards of care for specific classes of defendants
- Common carriers – highest duty of care consistent with practical operations of business
- Innkeepers – ordinary negligence (majority)
- Automobile drivers – ordinary care to guests as well as passengers (majority)
- Bailor – duty to warn all bailees of known dangerous defects and bailees for hire of defects bailor should have known about with reasonable diligence
Bailee – gratuitous only L for gross negligence; bailee for hire must exercise extraordinary care; bailee for mutual benefit must take reasonable care
Sellers of real property – duty to disclose, known, concealed, unreasonably dangerous conditions
Standard for possessors of land – trespassers
Refrain from willful, wanton, reckless, or intentional misconduct (e.g., no spring-guns)
- Discovered – warn or protect against concealed, dangerous, artificial conditions
- Undiscovered –generally no duty unless owner should reasonably know
Attractive nuisance doctrine
L for injuries to trespassing children if
- Artificial condition poses unreasonable risk of serious bodily injury,
- Children cannot appreciate danger,
- Burden of eliminating danger slight compared to risk of harm, and
- Owner fails to exercise reasonable care
IL DIS: NO attractive nuisance theory, but a landowner may still be L for injuries to children based on failure to take preventative action to avoid injuries