Torts Rules and Cases

Question 1

Garratt v Daily

Whether a five year old child can be held liable for battery when he intentionally caused harm?

Answer 1

A minor may be held liable for the tort of battery if he or she acted intentionally, with knowledge to a substantial certainty that his or her actions would cause a harmful or offensive contact to another person.

Question 2

Wagner v State

Whether there is more than intent to make contact necessary when meeting the intent element in a battery claim?

Answer 2

Intent to make contact is all that is necessary to meet the intent element in a battery claim.

Question 3

Ranson v Kitner
Can a party be liable in an action for damages for actions they take in good faith based on their own mistaken understanding of the circumstances?
Whether the appellee is liable for damages when the damages resulted from a mistake of the circumstances?

Answer 3

Even if acting in good faith, a party may nevertheless be held liable for damages resulting from her mistake.

Question 4

McGuire v Almy

Whether an insane person is liable for torts when they are not capable of controlling their behavior?

Answer 4

f a legally insane person causes intentional damage to the person or property of another, he or she is liable for that damage in the same circumstances in which a sane person would be liable.

Question 5

Talmage v Smith
Whether a person is liable to another individual for using unreasonable force and injuring that person when he did not specifically intend to use such force against that person.

Answer 5

A party is liable for damages to another if he intends to use unreasonable force to inflict harm upon another and accidentally harms another party whom he did not intend to use force against.

Question 6

Cole v Turner

Whether a party is liable for battery when the slightest use of violence is used.

Answer 6

Even the slightest touching of another out of anger constitutes a battery.

Question 7

Wallace v Rosen

Whether a person is liable for an offensive touching when they are in a crowded area.

Answer 7

In order for a touching to be sufficiently offensive so as to constitute a battery it must be offensive to an ordinary person not unduly sensitive as to personal dignity based on the time, place and circumstances under which the touching is done.

Question 8

Fisher v Carrousel Motor Hotel

Whether a party has committed a battery when they touch an object connected to a person in an offensive manner.

Answer 8

A party is liable for damages for humiliation for an intentional offensive touching of anything connected with another individual and actual physical contact with the actual body of another is not required.

Question 9

I de S et ux v. W de S

Whether physical harm is required for liability when there is an assualt.

Answer 9

No physical harm is required to find liability for assault.

Question 10

Western Union Telegraph v Hill
Whether a victim’s well-founded fear of battery, combined with the apparent ability of the defendant to touch the victim constitute a battery when no touch occurs.

Whether an employer is liable for it’s employee’s actions when the employee isn’t acting on behalf of the employer’s business interests.

Answer 10

To constitute an actionable assault, there must be an intentional, unlawful offer to touch another person in a rude or angry manner under circumstances that would create a well-founded fear of imminent battery, couple with apparent present ability of the offending party to effectuate the attempt

An employer will not be liable for an employee’s actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior if the employee has stepped aside from the employer’s business to pursue an entirely personal matter

Question 11

Big Town Nursing Home v Newman
Whether a party is liable for damages for false imprisonment for the direct restraint of another’s physical liberty when there is no legal justification.

Answer 11

False imprisonment is the direct restraint of the physical liberty of another without legal justification.

Question 12

Parvi v City of Kingston

Whether a victim can recover damages for false imprisonment when he has no conscious recollection of his confinement.

Answer 12

A victim cannot recover damages for false imprisonment unless the victim had a conscious knowledge of the unlawful confinement at the time the confinement took place.

Question 13

Hardy v LaBelle’s
Whether sufficient evidence the plaintiff was held against their will is needed to support the verdict and judgement when there are accusations of false imprisonment.

Answer 13

n order to hold a party liable for false imprisonment, a party must prove he or she was unlawfully restrained against his will.

Question 14

Enright v Groves
Whether a party can be liable for false imprisonment when taking another individual into custody without legal authority.

Answer 14

False imprisonment occurs when an individual is taken into custody by another who claims but does not have proper legal authority.

Question 15

Whittaker v Sandford (Boats and Hos)
Whether a party may recover for false imprisonment when they are restrained by another without the use of physical force.

Answer 15

To be liable for false imprisonment, a party must demonstrate that they have been subject to some manner of restraint, but not necessarily through the use of actual physical force by another.

Question 16

State Rubbish Collectors v Siliznoff
Whether a party is liable for intentionally causing another party mental distress when seriously threatening his physical well being, regardless of whether the threats technically constitute an assault.

Answer 16

A party can be liable for intentionally causing another party mental distress by seriously threatening his physical well-being, regardless of whether the threats technically constituted an assault under the circumstances.

Question 17

Slocum v Food Fair Stores
Whether a party is liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress when using simple insults not intended to have real meaning or serious effect that subsequently causes another emotional distress.

Answer 17

A party is not liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress for simple insults not intended to have real meaning or serious effect that subsequently causes another emotional distress.

Question 18

Harris v Jones
Whether a party may recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress when a party does not suffer a severely disabling emotional response to another’s conduct.

Answer 18

In order for a party to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress a party must suffer a severely disabling emotional response to another’s conduct.

Question 19

Taylor v Vallelunga
Whether an individual be held liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress when the individual did not act with the purpose to cause severe emotional distress or know with a substantial certainty that severe emotional distress would be produced from their conduct.

Answer 19

A party is liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress when the act is done for the purpose of causing emotional distress or with knowledge to a substantial certainty that severe emotional distress will be produced by their conduct.

Question 20

Dougherty v Stepp
Whether an unauthorized entry onto the land of another that causes no actual damage to the land may give rise to an action for trespass.

Answer 20

Unlawful, entry onto the land of another constitutes a trespass regardless of whether actual damage is caused to the land.

Question 21

Herrin v Sutherland
May a party be held liable to another for trespass for interfering with the enjoyment of another’s land without touching the actual surface of another’s land?

Answer 21

A party is liable for trespass for interfering with the quiet, undisturbed, peaceful enjoyment of another’s land even without touching the actual surface of another’s land.

Question 22

Rogers v Board of Road Com’rs

Can a party bring a cause of action for a continuing trespass for one’s failure to remove a structure, chattel or thing placed on another’s land pursuant to a license or privilege after the expiration of such license or privilege?

Answer 22

A continuing trespass is committed by the continued presence on the land of another of a structure, chattel or other thing, which the actor has placed there pursuant to a license or other privilege and has failed to remove after such license or privilege has been terminated.

Question 23

Glidden v Szybiak

Whether a party committed trespass to chattel when the chattel is not impaired as to its condition, quality or value?

Answer 23

An individual is liable for trespass to chattel when they, without consent or privilege, use or otherwise intentionally intermeddle with chattel that is in the possession of another, and the chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality, or value.

Question 24

Compuserve v Cyber
Promotions

May a party be held liable for trespass to chattel for dispossessing another’s chattel by interfering or intermeddling with another’s chattel such that either the value of such chattel is impaired or harm is caused to the possessor of the chattel?

Answer 24

One is subject to liability for trespass to chattel if, (1) he dispossesses another of the chattel, (2) the value of the chattel is impaired, (3) the possessor is deprived of the use of the chattel, or (4) harm is caused to the possessor of the chattel.

Question 25

Pearson v Dodd

Has a conversion occurred if the defendant has not so seriously interfered with the right of the owner to control it that the defendant would not be required to pay the owner the full value of the chattel?

Answer 25

A conversion is an intentional exercise of control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel.

Question 26

Hulle v Orynge

Can an individual be held liable for unintended damage that results from his/her performance of an intentional legal act?

Answer 26

Even if a person performs a lawful act, he has a legal duty to perform the act without causing damage to others.

Question 27

Weaver v Ward

Can someone be held liable in trespass for injuries accidentally caused to another?
Whether a person is liable for damage when his negligence causes accidental injury to another.

Answer 27

A person can be held liable in trespass for injuries accidentally caused to another.

Question 28

Brown v Kendall

Whether a defendant can be held liable for an injury to plaintiff if the defendant acted with lawful intent and without fault.

Answer 28

A defendant cannot be held liable for in injured plaintiff’s damages if the defendant acted with lawful intent and without fault.

Question 29

Cohen v Petty

Whether the defendant is liable for battery when defendant faints and wrecks a vehicle and injures passengers?
Whether a party is liable for negligence for injuries when an event or condition that the party is not knowledgeable of or has no reason to anticipate.

Answer 29

A party is not liable for negligence for injuries that result from an unforeseeable condition or event that a party has no knowledge of or any reason to anticipate.
IE a seizure while driving with no preexisting conditions

Question 30

Spano v Perini Corp

Whether strict or absolute liability may be imposed for damage resulting from ultrahazardous of abnormally dangerous activities such as blasting that are performed without negligence.
Whether strict or absolute liability may be imposed for damage resulting from dangerous activities when performed without negligence.

Answer 30

Even without showing of negligence, strict liability may be imposed for damage resulting from the performance of ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous activities such as blasting.

Question 31

O’Brien v Cunard S.S. Co

Whether an individual can hold another party liable for assault if the contact was justified or consented to.

Answer 31

A party is not liable for assault if the alleged unlawful contact was justified or the accusing party otherwise consented to such contact.

Question 32

Hackbart v Cincinnati Bengals

Whether an injury that is inflicted during a sporting event is a tort when the injury was inflicted intentionally.

Answer 32

party is liable for damages for the intentional, unauthorized striking of another even during the course of an otherwise violent activity.

Question 33

Mohr v Williams

Whether an absence of evil intent or negligence on the part of a defendant operates as a defense to the civil tort of assault and battery.

Answer 33

An absence of evil intent or negligence on the part of a defendant does not operate as a defense to the civil tort of assault and battery.

Doctor had no emergency to treat or immediate threat to life of patient he was operating on

Question 34

De May v Roberts

Whether you can recover damages from allowing someone’s presence in your home when later discovering their credentials have been misrepresented.

Answer 34

If someone consents to a person’s presence in their home but later learns that the person’s credentials had been misrepresented, they may maintain an action and recover damages once they discover the person’s true character.

Question 35

Katko v Briney

Whether an owner may protect personal property in an unoccupied dwelling against trespassers by a spring gun. (Trap intending to maim or kill)

Answer 35

A person, in protecting his property, may not use force calculated to cause death or serious bodily injury, except where there is also a threat to personal safety that justifies self-defense.

Question 36

Bonkowski v Arlan’s

Whether a merchant may be held liable for false arrest for detaining a person within the vicinity of the property when performing a reasonable investigation.

Answer 36

A merchant has the privilege to detain a person within the immediate vicinity of his premises for reasonable investigation if he believes the person has unlawfully taken chattel.

Shopkeeper rule

Question 37

Surocco v Geary

Whether a party who destroys the property of another would be held liable for damages when it was done in good faith and as a public necessity.

Answer 37

Under the common law, a party who destroys the property of another on the basis of a good faith public necessity will not be held liable for the damage.

Key is public nessicity

Question 38

Vincent v Lake Eerie
Transportation

Whether a party who ties their boat to another’s dock and damages it should compensate the owner’s of the dock when they were trying to keep it from drifting off in a storm.

Answer 38

A party who damages the property of another while acting out of private necessity must compensate the property owner for the resulting damages.

Question 39

Sindle v New York City Transit

Whether school bus drivers are justified in using reasonable imprisonment when they need to maintain discipline or promote the welfare of the child.

Answer 39

A person entrusted with the care or supervision of children may use a reasonably necessary amount of force to maintain discipline or promote the welfare of the child.