Trespass to person and Land Flashcards
Vosberg v. Putney
i. 1891
ii. Facts
1) D toe slightly touched P leg, when the class was called to attention
2) Plaintiff experienced pain and injury. He later lost the use of his leg, expert testimony theorized his leg was in a diseased state.
iii. Issue:
1) Is D liable for P injury even if the D did not intend to do harm that caused the injury?
iv. Holding
1) D is liable for P injury because while the injury was not intentional, the act was unlawful
v. Notes TL
1) Parents should have worked the issue out but could not, Unfortunately this is the reason a lot of cases are brought
2) The D was found liable because the D entertained unlawful intention
3) What makes this an unlawful act?
a) It was done in contrary to the decorum of the classroom, after the class was called to order.
Battery is non-consensual, offensive transfer
Garratt v. Dailey
i. Facts
1) D an old women sued the P a young boy for moving a chair out from under her, causing her to fall and break her hip
ii. Issue:
1) Is the D action of moving the chair which caused harmful bodily contact between the ground and the P a battery for which he is liable?
iii. Holding
1) D is liable for P injury because his moving the chair coupled with his knowledge the P would sit where it used to be constituted a wrongful act.
iv. Notes
1) Kid pulling chair may be considered a prank that is wrongful
a) Does a five year old have that capacity?
SS 2-13
i. An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
1) He acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person or an imminent apprehension of such a contact; and
2)
A harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results
SS 3-1
i. Intent
1) A person acts with the intent to produce a consequence if
a) The person acts with the purpose of producing that consequence; or b)
The person acts knowing that the consequence is substantially certain to result
SS 3-102
i. Battery: Required Intent
1.
The intent required for battery is the intent to cause a contact with the person of another. The actor need not intend to cause harm or offense to the other
White v. University of Idaho
i. Facts
1) D tapped the P on the back like he was playing a piano which caused injury to the P. D meant not harm, P asserted that the contact was non-consensual
ii. Issue:
1) Is the D liable or P injury even if the D did not intend to do the harm that caused the injury?
iii. Holding
1) D is liable for P’s injury even though D neither intended to harm nor offend P, because the action that caused the injury was unlawful
iv. Notes TL
1) Accepted behavior = privilege
2) Get on to a trax train and you are pushed up against other people, can you sue for battery?
No Implied consent will not allow that to happen
Talmage v. Smith
i. Facts
1) D threw a stick intending to hit A the stick hit P and injured them
ii. Holding
Transferred intent is still intent and thus constitutes battery
City of Watauga v. Gordon
i. Facts
1) Police officer is sued for placing handcuffs too tightly on an arrestee
ii. Holding
Not held as a negligent action, but an offensive battery
White v. Muniz
i. Facts
1) Mentally ill patient not in government care attacks her caregiver,
ii. Holding
D liable for battery under the technical definition of battery
Dougherty v. Stepp
i. Facts
1) P sues the D for trespassing on his enclosed land, D enters land with surveyors claiming it is his land
ii. Issue:
1) Is the D liable for trespass, even though he caused no damage?
iii. Holding
1) Yes because he entered the property without authorization (and in this case to try to take the land)
iv. Notes
1) There is no implied consent in 1835 to walk across someone’s close without permission
2.
Law of trespass was used for hundreds of years in determining and establishing land ownership. He who won would be considered the owner of the land
Smith v. Smith
i. Holding
1) D considered a trespasser when the eaves of his barn overhung the P land
Trespass above the ground and below it can occur not just on it
Neiswonger v. Goodyear
i. Holding
Low flying aircraft in violation of air traffic rules treated as common law trespass
Brown v. Dellinger
i. Facts
1) D brought matches onto the P’s land and started an unauthorized fire in the P’s Charcoal burner, the fire escaped and burned down his house
ii. Issue
1) Are the kids liable for trespass for igniting an unauthorized fire on the P’s property?
iii. Holding
D’s action which were committed purposefully and voluntarily, constitute a trespass because they were unauthorized.
Cleveland Park Club v. Perry
i. Facts
1) Kid swimming at the pool owned by the P removed a drain cover and put a rubber ball over the drain that when turned on got sucked down and damaged the pool.
ii. Issue:
1) Is the D liable for trespass when they put the ball in the drain pipe?
iii. Holding
1) The D is liable for an act of trespass even if the D did not intend to cause damage, because he was unauthorized to remove the cover and therefore his actions were unlawful.
iv. Notes TL
At what point do we hang the boy?
