Intentional Torts: Interference with Person and Property
Battery
Battery: Harmful Contact
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 contact, and
A harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results
Battery: Offensive Contact
An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if:
He acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such contact, and
An offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results
An act which is not done intentionally does not make the actor liable to the other for a mere offensive contact.
NOTES:
INTENT W/O CONTACT IS NOT A BATTERY
A BATTERY CAN BE FOUND WITHOUT CONTACT TO THE BODY, BUT WHERE THERE IS SUCH AS AN INTENTIONAL GRABBING OF AN ITEM FROM ONES HAND, AS IT IS CLEARLY AN OFFENSIVE INVASION OF THE PERSON (snatching a plate from a persons hand)
It is not necessary the actual body be disturbed but that something connected to the body is enough to be regarded as part of the body be disturbed to create an offensive act.
Assault
An actor is liable to another for assault if:
he acts intending to a cause a harmful or offensive contact with the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
the other is thereby put in such imminent apprehension
Notes:
The apprehension must be at the time of the incident, not after the fact.
“Threats” in the future or “conditional threats” are not usually held as assaults, though some are actionable.
Need the apparent ability to actually do the action to be liable.
False Imprisonment
An actor is liable for the tort of false imprisonment when he intends to confine another within fixed boundaries and the other person is conscious of the confinement.
Need to show:
A willful detention by defendant
Can be detention by violence, threats, etc. Does not have to be physically restrained. (so could be threat of calling police)
Without consent of plaintiff
Without authority of law
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Need to show:
Intent
The defendant must be shown to have acted with the purpose of causing mental distress.
Extreme and outrageous conduct
Courts can be very demanding as to whether the conduct was “extreme and outrageous”
Usually, abusive language and mere insult may not suffice as the conduct to support this tort.
People are expected and prefer to have developed a toughened skin for unkind or unseeming but normal occurrences of social interactions.
“broad application of this tort poses concerns that is could interfere with the exercise of legal rights; deter socially useful conduct that nevertheless causes emotional harm; impugning free speech or target conduct that is “different” rather than particularly reprehensible.
Severe Emotional Distress
There is some indication that this is extremely hard to prove
Trespass to Land/Private Nuisance
Trespass to Land-
A possessor of real property has a right to exclusive property
One who intentionally enters land in the possession of another has committed the Tort of Trespass to Land.
Even one who mistakenly steps on another’s property, believing it to be his own, commits the tort.
Private Nuisance-
To make out a case for Private Nuisance, a case for interference with the use & enjoyment of property the plaintiff must establish:
a basis for liability (based on tort liability) (intent to do activity, negligence, strict liability)
significant harm (annoyance or trivial harm won’t count)
an unreasonable invasion of the plaintiff’s land
The mere fact that plaintiff has suffered significant & unreasonable invasion of her property will not make out a cause of action without conduct that is tortious.
Trespass to Chattels
Deals with Intentional interferences with personal property of others.
If minor offense= trespass to chattel & defendant pays only the value of the harm caused to the chattel.
If serious= conversion and the law gives plaintiff option of retaining the chattel and recovering the value of the harm, or relinquishing the chattel to the defendant and recovering fair market value.
The damage must be tangible.
Intent can be key in shifting from Trespass to Chattels into Conversion.
Conversion
Conversion is an intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes w/ the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full market value.
In determining the seriousness of the interference and the justice of requiring the actor to pay the full market value, the following factors are important:
The extent and duration of...