Torts - Quiz 1 Flashcards
Essential Elements of a Tort
Intent, Act, Result
Reason for tort damages
Compensatory and Deterrance (punitive)
Battery
(1) Intent to cause harmful or offensive contact and (2) resulting contact made that is harmful or offensive
Snyder v. Turk
Doctor grabs Nurse’s shoulder. pulls it toward a wound.
Takeaway: Actual harm doesn’t have to occur to be a battery, only intent, act, and result (including contact).
Cohen v. Smith
Devoutly religious couple comes to hosp to have a baby, informs dr’s and nurse’s of their beliefs prohibiting the wife from being seen by another male while nude. A nurse saw and touched her during labor.
Takeaway: Offense is subject to a reasonable person standard according to the Restatements
Van Camp v. McAfoos
toddler runs into a woman’s leg while riding a tricycle, def did not claim fault on part of toddler.
Takeaway: Fault must be present for a battery to exist . Parents may be held liable based on propensity test.
Parent/Child Liability - Propensity Test
They will be liable if:
- The child has a propensity toward a certain behavior
- The parents have knowledge of said propensity
Battery - Elements of Intent
YES Knowledge of a substantial certainty
YES Extended liability
YES TransIn - Person to Person
YES TransIn - Tort to Tort
Types of Intent in Intentional Torts
Purposeful - Acts to bring about the intended outcome
Knowledgeable - the person acts knowing that the consequence is substantially certain to result. (90% certain)
Single Intent
Intent to contact is all that is necessary
Dual Intent
both the act and the result must be intended to create liability
Transferred Intent - Person to Person
intent to harm need not be brought against the intended target to create liability
Transferred Intent - Tort to Tort
intent to commit one tort that results in another will create liability under that tort
Extended liability
If someone commits an intentional tort they are liable for the resulting injuries, even if those injuries are worse than the person intended or could have anticipated.
Can an insane person be guilty of intentional tort?
Intent can be created by any action even if the reasoning is indiscernible so long as it is not accidental or perpetrated by someone who is incapable of a voluntary act
When is intent not present?
Sleepwalking, reflexive movements, epilepsy, etc
Negligence by nature has no intent (it occurs when someone acts without a reasonable amount of care)
White v. Univ of Idaho
piano teacher intentionally used fingers to drum on back of plaintiff who was injured, the teacher was held liable because the act was intended even though the harm was not
Use of Single Intent - Battery does not require the intent to harm or offend, merely the intent to touch from which the harm or offense followed.
Extended Liability - Liable for harm worse than intended
Garrat v. Dailey
a boy moved a chair then when a woman went to sit down she fell and broke her hip. Court ruled that you must intend the harm or offense not merely the act that caused it. Case was remanded for consideration of the boy’s intent.
Use of Dual Intent - Intent requires the action to bring about a result or a reasonable expectation that the result could occur.
Baska v. Sherzer
highschool party where two boys were fighting and the host ended up getting punched, the puncher was liable
Transferred intent
Poltmaier v. Russ
Man went insane and shot his father in law, court ruled that he acted intentionally even though the decision made no sense to us
Irrational actions can have intent, but intent must be present
False Imprisonment
An intentional act to confine
Confinement occurs, directly or indirectly
The person confined is conscious of the confinement
OR
The person confined is harmed by confinement
Duress of Goods
Ability to leave may not be hindered, but if leaving would risk loss or damage to an item of property, it still could be considered false imprisonment
Time Requirement for False Imprisonment
“an appreciable length of time, however short”
Assault
Intentional action
attempted with unlawful force
toward another person
which causes apprehension of an imminent threat in that person.
Intent elements for False Imprisonment
YES Knowledge of a substantial certainty
YES Extended liability
YES TransIn - Person to Person
YES TransIn - Tort to Tort
Intent elements for Assault
YES Knowledge of a substantial certainty
YES Extended liability
YES TransIn - Person to Person
YES TransIn - Tort to Tort
Ball v WalMart
woman was stopped and made to wait while checker looked over her receipt, court found she was falsely imprisoned because he stood in her way and there was no
If a reasonable person feels they aren’t allowed to leave, that could constitute false imprisonment
Brower v. Ackerly
Individual received threatening phone calls which did cause apprehension but because the threat was not imminent there was no assault.
Threat must be imminent, words are alone are not enough
Misle v. State Farm
Shooting a bee bee gun into a crowd “just to scare them”
Transferred intent - Tort to Tort - if you intend to commit an assault but make contact, you will be liable for a battery
Trespass to Land
Voluntary entry onto land with intent to enter or remain on land without consent that constitutes an actionable invasion of a possesor’s interest in the exclusive possession of land
Martin v. Reynolds Metals
Aluminum particulate was drifting over onto Martin’s land. The court found that the particulate interfered with Martin’s exclusive possession of land.
Any action that represents an intrusion that results in harm to the land of the possessor or is likely to arouse conflict between the parties will be considered a trespass.
Intangible particles can constitute a trespass if they substantially interfere with possession of land
Intent elements for Trespass to Land
YES Knowledge of a substantial certainty
YES Extended liability
YES TransIn - Person to Person
YES TransIn - Tort to Tort
Trespass to Chattel
When one dispossess another person’s chattel with intent to cause substantial interference with chattel and such interference results.
Intent elements of Trespass to Chattel
YES Knowledge of a substantial certainty
YES Extended liability
YES TransIn - Person to Person
YES TransIn - Tort to Tort
Glidden v. Szybiak
A girl played with a dog by climbing on its back and pulling its ears, the dog then bit her nose. The court found in her favor overruling the claim of the dog owner that the girl committed a trespass to chattel because there was no harm or injury to the dog.
Actual harm must occur for it to constitute a chattel
Conversion
Taking a chattel with the intent of exercising over ownership right inconsistent with the real owners rights of possession.
doesn’t require intention to steal, but does require intention to take. Taking is sufficient to create liability.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Intentional or reckless act
That is extreme and outrageous
That causes severe emotional distress
Self Defense
An actor can use reasonable force
To defend against
Harmful or offensive contact
That they believe is going to be inflicted upon them
Force must match the threat!
Consent
-One who effectively consents
-to conduct of another
intended to invade his interests
-cannot recover in an action of tort for the conduct or for harm resulting from it.
-So long as
-The consent was effective
-The person giving it had the ability to consent
-The action matched what was consented or was substantially similar
-There was not a material mistake
Necessity
- It creates a right that otherwise wouldn’t exist
- It is supported by natural law which has no boundaries and it’s not man-made
- Where it exists you may have a right to use or destroy someone else’s property even though they’re not doing anything to you
Kremen v. Cohen
Sex.com domain was illegally swiped by Cohen who duped the domain name registrar into giving him the domain. Cohen was liable but fled, so Kremen sued and the court ruled it constituted a conversion. Network Solutions could be liable because they gave away Kremen’s property, even if there was no fault.
Property converted does not need to be physical
GTE Southwest Inc v. Bruce
Over a period of time, Morris Shields, supervisor at GTE, repeatedly subjected employees under his care to personal, intense criticism and discomfort that allegedly rises to IIED. GTE is sued as the principle on who’s behalf Morris was acting.
Murray v. Schlosser
Radio DJ’s berated a bride’s physical appearance and awarded her “Dog of the week” after describing her as “too ugly to even rate” on their radio program.
First amendment rights do not protect private citizens where their actions are intended to or they ought to have known to a substantial certainty that emotional distress would occur
Bettis v. Iran
Hezbollah kidnapped and tortured Father Jenco for 564 days. His family brought a suit against Iran for IIED after his death alleging that Iran knew and provided support to Hezbollah, seeking damages for immediate and extended family.
Presence requirement is not required where the absence of the individual is the act that inflicts the IIED. The scope of liability will be limited to immediate family members.
Hartley v. Oidtman
barkeep hits patron b/c patron had been in a fight earlier and might attack again
You do not have to wait to be hit to defend yourself
Katko v. Briney
Couple sets up a shotgun in their dilapidated house to deter trespassers and it works, but because there was not a threat to personal safety, it was not self-defense. Personal life is always more protected than property.
You cannot use lethal force where there is not a threat of lethal force
Peters v. Menards
Shoplifter runs, employees chase, shoplifter jumps in a stream and doesn’t make it. The company did not have any liability because the three reasonableness requirements were met.
There must be reasonable cause to believe the person was shoplifting
The manner must be reasonable
The length must be reasonable
Reavis v. Slominski
Consent is contested where a dentist began and carried on a physical relationship with an employee wherein she resisted but eventually relented feeling powerless to avoid it.
Allowing action to happen is not necessarily consent.
Surrocco v. Geary
Fire raged in SF, the magistrate decided a house needed to be blown up to prevent the fire from continuing, owner wasn’t able to finish removing items, sued for loss of goods.
Public necessity grants right to such destruction
Vincent v. Lake Erie
Boat was docked during a storm and, as a result of the wind and waves, it damaged the dock. The court ruled that even though it was a prudent decision, the owner of the boat is liable to the plaintiff for the damage done to his dock.
Private citizens will be liable to any harm caused
Ploof v. Putnam
Storm overtakes a boat who seeks shelter at a private island’s dock, but is refused by employee of owner. The boatowners suffer damage and sue, the court finds that the owner of the island is liable through respondeat superior.
Where a necessity arises and is refused, that may be liability on the part of the refuser for the damages suffered by plaintiff.
Element of Contact
Contact must be made, although it does not have to a person’s body, it could also offend or harm something intimately close to them which can be understood as a part of them
Element of Harm
Harm does not have to occur to be a battery, only intentional contact that is harmful OR offensive
Snyder v. Turk
A doctor grabbed a nurse’s shoulder and forced her face down near the wound when she gave him the wrong tool. While there was no clear harm, a reasonable person could find that the Dr. intended harmful or offensive contact and ruled for the nurse.
Element of Offense
Offense is subject to a reasonable person standard.
Cohen v. Smith
Devoutly religious couple informs hospital staff of their beliefs which are violated by a nurse who touches and views the wife while naked. The court ruled that knowing interference with the right of determination is a battery, thus this could be a battery.
Element of Fault
Fault is an essential part of the element of action which are the facts that allow a person to bring an action against another. Without fault, an action for battery cannot be brought.
VanCamp v. McAfoos
A toddler ran into a woman’s leg while riding on the sidewalk. The court ruled that because the act was not unreasonable and no fault was claimed by the woman, this was not a battery.
