Torts Learning Questions - Set 1 Flashcards
A defendant intended to commit an assault on A, but his conduct only constituted a battery on B.
Under the transferred intent doctrine, the defendant is liable for __________.
A
an attempted assault of A and an assault of B
B
an attempted assault of A and a battery of B
C
a battery of B
D
an assault of B
C
The defendant has committed a battery of B when he acts with the intent to commit an assault on A, but his conduct constitutes a battery on B. The transferred intent doctrine allows an intent to commit a tort against one person to be transferred to the committed tort or to the injured person. It applies to (i) assault, (ii) battery, (iii) false imprisonment, (iv) trespass to land, and (v) trespass to chattels.
The defendant is not liable for an assault of B. The committed tort was a battery, and the intent transfers from the assault to the battery.
Nor is the defendant liable for an attempted assault of A. There is no tort liability for an attempted assault standing alone. The defendant is liable only because of the transferred intent doctrine, and only to the person harmed. Hence, there is no liability to A here.
Which of the following statements as to assault is correct?
A
The plaintiff must be aware of the source of the threatened contact
B
A defendant is never liable for the plaintiff’s unreasonable fears
C
The plaintiff may apprehend an immediate harmful or offensive contact without feeling fear or intimidation
D
Transferred intent may not be used for assault
C
In an assault case, the plaintiff may apprehend an immediate harmful or offensive contact without feeling fear or intimidation. Establishing a prima facie case for assault requires proof of an act by the defendant that creates a reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff of immediate harmful or offensive contact. Apprehension is not the same as fear or intimidation. Apprehension here is used in the sense of expectation. Thus, one may reasonably apprehend an immediate contact although he believes he can defend himself or otherwise avoid it.
It is incorrect to state that transferred intent may not be used for assault. The doctrine of transferred intent does apply to assault cases.
It is also incorrect to state that a defendant is never liable for the plaintiff’s unreasonable fears. Although typically the plaintiff’s apprehension of harmful or offensive contact must be reasonable, and courts generally will not protect a plaintiff against exaggerated fears, a defendant will be liable if he knows of the plaintiff’s unreasonable fear and uses it to put the plaintiff in apprehension.
The plaintiff does not need to be aware of the source of the threatened contact. If the plaintiff apprehends an imminent harmful or offensive contact, the defendant who initiated the threat is liable even if the plaintiff does not know the defendant’s identity or location at that point.
For a prima facie case of assault, the element of apprehension may not be established by __________.
A
an expectation of contact
B
an apparent ability to act
C
words alone
D
a conditional threat
C
Words alone may not establish the element of apprehension in a prima facie case of assault. Words alone, no matter how violent, do not constitute an assault; they cannot create a reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. Some overt act is required. If the words are accompanied by an overt act, like clenching a fist, then apprehension may be proved.
A conditional threat may establish the element of apprehension in a prima facie case of assault. For example, if a gunman, while pointing a gun at a plaintiff, states, “Your money or your life,” then an assault has occurred.
An apparent ability to act may establish the element of apprehension. A plaintiff may be placed in apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact, even if the defendant is not actually able to cause harm to the plaintiff. Apprehension will be established if the defendant appears to be able to cause harm to the plaintiff.
The element of apprehension may be established by an expectation of contact. If a plaintiff expects that an immediate contact on her person will occur, then the element of apprehension has been established.
To establish a prima facie case of battery, which of the following must a plaintiff prove?
A
Actual damages
B
Apprehension by the plaintiff
C
Harmful contact or offensive contact as judged by a reasonable person
D
Direct contact with the plaintiff’s body from the defendant
C
Harmful contact or offensive contact as judged by a reasonable person must be proved by a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of battery. The elements that must be proved to establish a prima facie case for battery are:
(i) An act by the defendant that brings about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person;
(ii) Intent by the defendant to bring about the harmful or offensive contact; and
(iii) Causation.
Contact is harmful if it causes actual injury, pain, or disfigurement. Contact is offensive if it would be considered offensive to a reasonable person.
Direct contact with the plaintiff’s body from the defendant need not be proved by a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of battery. For battery purposes, anything connected to the plaintiff’s person is viewed as part of the person, such as a purse. Indirect contact also will suffice (e.g., the defendant puts something across the plaintiff’s path to cause her to trip).
Apprehension by the plaintiff need not be proved by a plaintiff for battery. A plaintiff may recover even if she was not conscious of the harmful or offensive contact when it occurred. For example, a plaintiff could suffer a battery while under sedation for a surgery.
Actual damages also need not be proved by a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of battery. A plaintiff may recover nominal damages even if she suffered no actual damages.
A golfer and her instructor were playing golf in a foursome when the golfer became very annoyed with critical comments made by the instructor. To show the other golfers in the group how annoyed she was with her instructor, the golfer stood a few yards behind him while the instructor was teeing off and swung a club at him. The instructor, who was focusing on his shot, was not within range of the club but unfortunately the club slipped out of the golfer’s hands and struck the instructor in the head, injuring him.
If the instructor brings a battery action against the golfer, will he recover?
A Yes, because the golfer acted intentionally and caused harmful contact to her instructor.
B Yes, because the golfer intended to cause the instructor reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact.
C No, because the golfer did not intend to cause harmful or offensive contact.
D No, unless the golfer acted unreasonably in swinging the club at her instructor.
C
The golfer will not be liable because she did not intend to cause harmful or offensive contact. The prima facie case for battery has the following elements: (i) an act by the defendant that brings about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person; (ii) intent on the part of the defendant to bring about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person; and (iii) causation. Here, the golfer did not have the intent to cause harmful or offensive contact. Hence, she will not be guilty of battery. (A) is incorrect because even though the golfer had the intent to swing the club, she did not have the intent required for battery—to cause harmful or offensive contact to another. (B) is incorrect because the facts do not support an intent to cause an assault. Under the transferred intent doctrine, an intent to cause an assault (intent to cause apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact) will satisfy the intent requirement for battery when the other elements of battery are present. Here, however, the golfer was standing behind the instructor and was intending only to show the other golfers how annoyed she was. No intent to commit assault is apparent here. (D) is incorrect because it describes a negligence standard. The instructor may be able to recover against the golfer in a negligence cause of action if the golfer acted unreasonably in swinging the club, but this does not establish intent for a battery action.
A missionary was travelling door to door hoping to convert others to his church. At one house, a devout elderly woman answered the door and the two began discussing their religious differences. The conversation took a disagreeable turn, and the woman, greatly offended, slammed her door shut. The missionary had been leaning with his hand on the doorway during their conversation, and as a consequence, his fingers were pinched in the door, causing him injury.
If the missionary asserts a claim based on battery against the woman and prevails, what is the most likely reason?
A The woman had not first asked the missionary to leave the property.
B The woman knew that the door was substantially certain to pinch the missionary’s fingers.
C The woman acted in anger by slamming the door shut.
D The missionary was not trespassing when he came to the woman’s door.
B
If the missionary prevails, it will be because the woman knew that the door would likely pinch his fingers. 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. Here, by slamming the door shut, the woman set in motion a force that brought about harmful contact to the missionary. (A) is wrong because a request to leave the property would not have justified commission of the battery. Generally, one may use reasonable force to prevent the commission of a tort against her property, if use of force is preceded by a request to desist. The missionary was not engaged in the commission of a tort against the woman’s property. Thus, the woman’s use of force was not justified, with or without a request to leave the property. (C) is wrong because the woman’s anger is not determinative as to whether she had the requisite intent to commit a battery. (D) is wrong because the fact that the missionary was not trespassing when he came to the door is not determinative. Nothing in the facts indicates that the woman had the right to use force against the missionary at the time she slammed the door.
An impatient driver who was fed up with jaywalking pedestrians drove straight at one of them, leaning on the horn and intending to make her jump. She did not hear him or change her pace, however, because her music player was turned to full volume. A bystander on the curb rushed out to pull her to safety. She tripped as she was being pulled to the curb, fracturing her kneecap.
If the pedestrian sues the driver for assault, what will be the likely result?
A The driver wins, because the pedestrian did not know at the time that she was in danger from the driver.
B The driver wins, because he did not intend for the pedestrian to be injured by his conduct.
C The pedestrian wins, because the driver intended to create in her an apprehension of immediate harmful contact.
D The pedestrian wins, because the driver’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing her injury.
A
The driver is not liable for assault because he did not cause the pedestrian to reasonably apprehend an immediate harmful contact. The prima facie case for assault requires (i) an act by defendant causing a reasonable apprehension in plaintiff of immediate harmful or offensive contact to plaintiff’s person, (ii) intent by defendant to bring about in plaintiff apprehension of that contact, and (iii) causation. For there to be apprehension, plaintiff must be aware of defendant’s act at the time that it is occurring. Here, because the pedestrian was oblivious to the driver’s attempt to scare her, the driver is not liable for assault. (B) is incorrect because whether the driver had an intent to injure the pedestrian is irrelevant for purposes of assault. (C) is incorrect. While the driver did have the intent to commit an assault, his act does not meet the requirements for the prima facie case because his act did not cause reasonable apprehension. (D) is incorrect even though the driver’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the pedestrian’s injury (i.e., the causation element would have been satisfied if damages were required for assault). Because the driver did not cause an apprehension of contact on the pedestrian’s part, the driver is not liable for assault.
A nonunion carpenter went to work on a construction project that was involved in a labor dispute. Every morning when he arrived at work, he would be accosted by the picketers who would try to persuade him not to continue to work. One morning while the carpenter was trying to get to work, one of the union workers stopped him at the gate and told him that he should not go to work. When the carpenter insisted that the striker get out of the way, the striker said, “Try to make me, scab!” The carpenter, intending to frighten the striker, swung his hammer at him. The head on the hammer, however, was defective and it flew off, hitting the striker in the face.
If the striker sues the carpenter for battery, is he likely to prevail?
A Yes, because he was struck by the hammer head.
B Yes, unless he intended to provoke the carpenter.
C No, because the negligence of the manufacturer of the hammer was the direct cause of the injury.
D No, if a reasonable person would have been angered by what the striker had said.
A
The facts state that the carpenter swung the hammer at the striker “intending to frighten” him. Thus, the carpenter did an act with the intent of causing the apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact, i.e., an “assault.” Because the striker was actually hit by the hammer head, the trial court would utilize the transferred intent doctrine to supply the necessary intent for battery. It makes no difference that the carpenter may not have known that the hammer was defective, because he set in motion the force that injured the striker; hence, (C) is an improper answer. (B) and (D) are not correct answers because they both go to the issue of a defense, and a person is not privileged to use deadly force against another no matter how provoking the other’s mere statements may have been. Clearly, being hit with a hammer would be considered deadly force.
