#11081 - Intentional Torts - Torts

Exclude: spasm, sleep/unconscious actions, manipulation of the actor’s body by others

1. E.g. faint and fall

Include:

1. reactions to emergencies: somebody coming at me, I put my hand out

2. responses to threats and fear: people threaten me with a gun to hit another

Volitional act is not about the end or intermediate result of the act

P needs to prove that D acts with the purpose to cause the consequence or that D knows or should have known with substantial certainty that the act will cause the consequence.

Intentional tort or recklessness distinction

1. Some industrial activities that involve a high risk of harm may reasonably encompass situations that fall within the scope of an intentional tort rather than recklessness if the following is demonstrated:

   1. Knowledge by the employer of the existence of a dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality or condition within its business operation;

   2. knowledge by the employer that if the employee is subjected by his employment to such dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality or condition, then harm to the employee will be a substantial certainty;

   3. the employer, under such circumstances, and with such knowledge, did act to require the employee to continue to perform the dangerous task

2. Deliberate removal by the employer of an equipment safety guard is evidence, the presumption of which may be rebutted, of an act committed with the intent to injure another.

3. Recklessness: conduct creates a known risk that can be reduced by relatively modest precautions.

Actual causation = but for causation: cause in fact of the plaintiff’s injury

1. Intentional tort only has actual causation

Legal causation = proximate causation: legally fair to hold the defendant liable for the injury

Injury: invasion of legally protected interest of another

Harm: loss or detriment in fact

Damages: what the P claims for, in dollars

1. always consider damages in the injury part

An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if 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 a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.

An actor is subject to liability to another for assault if 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 the other is thereby put in such imminent apprehension.

An assault usually precedes battery.

Act

Intent FORK: dual/ single intent

1. Dual intent (modern trend): intend the contact and harm.

   1. Transferred intent (Hall v. McBryde):

      1. (Intend a different kind of consequence) If an act is done with the intention of inflicting upon another an offensive but not a harmful bodily contact, or of putting another in apprehension of either a harmful or offensive bodily contact, and such act causes a bodily contact to the other, the actor is liable to the other for a battery although the act was not done with the intention of bringing about the resulting bodily harm.

      2. (Intend a harm to a third party) If the P acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, but causes such a contact with the D, P is liable to the D as if P intended to so affect D.

         1. Throw a ball at a crowd: intent requirement is met because he knows with substantial certainty that he would hit someone. Not transfer intent because there is no specific victim.

         2. A aims at B, mistaken B for C, and actually hits B, this is not transfer intent, as A intends to hit B. This is a mistake of fact about B’s identity.

   2. P needs to prove that D acts with the purpose to cause the harmful or offensive contact, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, or that D knows or should have known with substantial certainty that the act will cause the a harmful or offensive contact or an imminent apprehension of such a contact.

      1. I throw a stone at someone thinking that it will miss – purpose to cause harm

      2. I empty a bottle of water from the second floor – substantially certain

      3. Substantial certainty test is a subjective test. Must really know with substantial certainty.

2. Single Intent (majority rule): intend to act

   1. Includes: a bad joke

   2. Excludes: stumbles on someone (may be negligence)

3. Purpose of intent requirement: confine intentional tort liability to cases in which the defendant acts with a higher level of culpability than mere carelessness.

Causation: causes (directly or indirectly) harmful and offensive contact, but for P’s act, the injury wouldn’t have happened.

Injury (damages):

1. Offensive or harmful contact – Battery

   1. A bodily contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity.

      1. Circumstances: If prior course of conduct between the parties indicates that they accept contacts that would ordinarily be considered offensive, the contacts are not offensive.

      2. If D acts knowing the particular sensibility of the person that would be offended by the contact, the contact will also be considered offensive. (Cohen)

      3. Social usage: unwarranted by the social usages prevalent at the time.

   2. Contact examples:

      1. The D need not actually touch the P, or even be present at the time of the contact:

         1. touch with a stick

         2. set up a wire and P trip overs it later

         3. lace one’s drink with poison

         4. blow smoke on P’s face (FORK: a kind of substance/ lack of physical touching)

         5. provide a hotel room infested with bedbugs (substantial certainty that P would suffer an offensive contact with the bugs)

         6. moving a chair when D know with substantial certainty that P would sit down and land on the floor

         7. set up security system in his car that administers an electric shock to trespasser.

      2. Objects intimately associated with D’s body: hat, coat, glasses.

      3. A, who is suffering from a contagious skin disease, touches B's hands, thus putting B in reasonable apprehension of contagion. This is an offensive touching of B.

      4. Contact need not be with D or instrumentalities of D. Contact with the ground or with other objects will suffice.

   3. Contact and consequences

      1. Actor is liable for the unintended consequences caused by contact. E.g. D trips P, but P falls down the stairs, hurt by a stone, and suffers concussion. The tripping part is a complete battery, and D is responsible for the concussion even though D did not intend to cause concussion.

      2. D intends a blow, but causes more injury than expected. If the blow is tortious, then D is responsible. If the blow is not tortious, then D not responsible.

      3. A intentionally hits B on the head. B is taken to the hospital where, by a gross and not expectable error, a nurse gives him a poison instead of a medicine, as a result of which he is seriously harmed. It may be found that A is liable for the harm caused by the poison.

   4. P need not be aware of the contact: dentist and anesthetized patient.

2. Put the person in such imminent apprehension – Assault

   1. For assault, P must be aware of the apprehension- anticipation of unwelcome contacts

      1. If D intentionally tries to hit P with a car, but passes P without hitting P. P is looking into his phone and does not see D’s car coming. D is not liable for assault.

      2. If P knows that no imminent harmful or offensive contact will really occur, D is not liable for assault

   2. Apprehension is not frighten, the action for assault protects victim from the anticipation of unwelcome contacts, even where they are confident that they can adequately defend themselves.

      1. Example: A, a short girl, shakes her fist at B, a tall, heavy putter and says “B, wipe that smile off your face or I’ll wipe it off for you!” B turns out to be super sensitive and develops a psychological phobia

         1. A is liable for assault because even if B can adequately defend himself, A still put B in the anticipation of harm. The strong have a right to physical autonomy as well as the weak

         2. A is responsible for all damages because A has committed an assault. A is liable for all damages as a result of the intentional tort.

         3. Even if B is super sensitive, a reasonable person would still find the word and the action of fist offensive. So there is an assault despite the super sensitiveness of B or the strength of B.

   3. Conditional threats:

      1. There is assault unless D has the legal right to enforce the condition

Infant-tortfeasor (Weisbart arrow case)

1. Intentional tort (like adult except damages): Yes, children can be held liable for intentional tort. They are responsible for compensatory damages but not for punitive damages, “unless at the time of the act he was capable of knowing that it was wrongful.” Rationale: compensate the victim (through homeowner insurance or parents)

2. Negligence: No, children are incapable of personal negligence; they are not able to foresee the possibilities of their inadvertent conduct.

3. Parents have the duty to supervise their children (negligence claim) if:

   1. Have right to supervise

   2. Know or should have known that the child is a danger

   3. Does not use reasonable care to control or discipline the child

   4. FORK: some states have rules making parents strictly liable for their children’s tort, but these rules often include significant limitations, e.g. damages caps.

Insane tortfeasor:

1. Unless the actor is a child, insanity or other mental deficiency does not relieve an actor from liability for conduct which does not conform to a reasonable...