#17542 - Intentional Torts Notes - Tort Law

TORTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

General………………………………………………………1

Battery……………………………………………………….2

Assault……………………………………………………….8

Trespass…………………………………………………….12

False Imprisonment ……………………………………….14

IIED…………………………………………………………18

Consent……………………………………………………...22

Insanity……………………………………………………...34

Self Defense…………………………………………………36

Defense of Property………………………………………...39

Necessity…………………………………………………….41

Damages…………………………………………………….43

Exam Taking…………………………………………………...45

Sample Format…………………………………………………46

General

Foundational Maxim of Tort Law: always favor the plaintiff

• There is unfairness to the defendant one on side – certain damages to pay

• There is unfairness to the plaintiff on the other side – victim and unactionable person

• Favor the plaintiff – the victim & not the tortfeasor

Prima Facie Case

• That which the defendant has to establish on its face to file a complaint, for the defendant to defend/answer

• “You did a particular set of bad things, in a particular way, that I can sue”

• Need to establish: act + intent + causation

Religion

• Can’t really use torts when involved with religion: hard to do tort law cases

Restatement

• Read all of the cases and tell you what the law is

• Short, easy, way = common law

• William Prosser

General

• Civil Case – person to person

• Monetary Damages – some kind of seeking of damages

• Liable or not liable – not “guilty”

• Intentional Harm v. Accidental Harm

• Cause of action – basis of your case

INTENTIONAL TORTS

Battery

Definition: Intentional unlawful touching of someone that is unwarranted/harmful

Intent: require intentional touching – with purpose to touch or act is unlawful.

Note: Even if there are no injuries, plaintiff can win because there is still a battery

1. Intention

SUMMARY: To Establish Intent

• Intended to touch

• Act unlawful = intent unlawful

• Substantial Certainty Action/Touching will occur

• Transferred Intent

If act was unlawful, the intention to commit the act must necessarily be unlawful

• There is an intent to touch, doesn’t matter whether or not there is an intent to do harm

• If you intentionally do an act that is unlawful, then doing the act is unlawful

• Intending to do cause the act is enough, no need to intend to cause injury or specific bodily harm

• Doing ‘X’ is unlawful, then you doing the act, the act of doing is unlawful

• Act of something unlawful – if you do it purposefully, your intent is also unlawful

• Just because plaintiff didn’t intend, doesn’t mean that in the court of law intent isn’t there

• Called Specific Intent

  • (Vosburg v. Putney)

    • FACTS:

      • Vosburg (plaintiff) and Putney (defendant) were both in class when Putney kicked him below the knee on his shin. Vosburg didn’t feel the effect immediately, but cried out in pain a few minutes later. That kick made him feel worse and ill over the next few days. He had a previous injury in that place, that was initially healing fine. Doctors tried to give him medication, after nothing helped, they did an operation on him to see what was wrong. Putney’s kick had activated bacteria that was eating away at Vosburg’s flesh and bone, and he lost use of his leg. Brought suit for assault and battery.

    • Peter intentionally touched him kicked him

    • Even though not intentional harm intentional act unlawful intentionally unlawful

• (Wagner v. Utah)

  • FACTS:

    • Mentally impaired man could commit battery when he attacked another person “without reason” because the only required mental state was the intention to make contact with plaintiff, not the intention to cause harm.

If act with knowing of a substantial certainty that this action would produce an unlawful touching, that would be an unlawful act, and that would be like he intended unlawful touching

• Substantial certainty the action would take place – that touching will result, not that it will be unlawful

• He intended to commit the act that resulted in unlawful touching – unlawful intent

• Extremely important: when the defendant claims he did not intend to touch plaintiff

• Called General Intent

• (Garratt v. Dailey)

  • FACTS:

    • Plaintiff, adult woman, brought a battery suit against Brian Dailey, 5 years old at the time, who caused her fractured hip when he was a guest in her backyard. Defendant claimed he had tried to help plaintiff by placing a chair under her as she was about to fall, but he was too small to move it into place. But then plaintiff’s sister said that as the “arthritic woman had begun the slow process of being seated, the defendant quickly moved chair and sat himself upon it, and that he knew, with substantial certainty, that she would attempt to sit in the place where the chair had been.”

  • Asking whether Brian knew because that would determine his liability

    • Case is doing that to extrapolate whether he had intent

    • This is a subjective standard

Transferred Intent

• Even if didn’t intend to hurt X, intending to hurt Y, X can still claim battery – intend to hurt someone was there

• Intend to do something to X, but hurts Y, still treat it like you “intended” to harm Y

• Ability to transfer intent between torts – between battery and assault

  • Intended to do a battery, definitely there will be intention for assault

• Is limited to the following if intended to do one of these and one of these resulted:

  • Assault

  • Battery

  • False Imprisonment

  • Trespass to land

  • Trespass to chattel

• Also if intend to do an assault, but touching actually occurs and becomes battery, enough intent to satisfy battery

• (Talmage v. Smith)

  • FACTS:

    • Plaintiff struck in the eye by a stick that the defendant threw at tow of the plaintiff’s companions while they were trespassing upon the defendant’s property. The defendant asserted that he did not see the plaintiff, much less intend to hurt him.

  • Right of the plaintiff to recover was made to depend upon the intention on the part of the defendant to hit somebody, and to inflict an unwarranted injury upon someone.

  • The fact that is resulted to another than intended does not relieve the defendant from responsibility.

2. Unlawful

How to decide if ‘X’ is unlawful, the act is unlawful

• Act is unlawful - Look at the context and setting

  • What settings give license to that kind of behavior

    • Permissible/allowed

    • Implied license – not explicit or expressed

    • Compare two settings – analogy/disanalogy

    • Generally expected – usual of that setting: license of that setting

    • (Vosburg v. Putney)

      • School classroom implied license v. playground license

Giving someone license makes it no longer unlawful

• Context / invitation to touch / invitation to come over

Unauthorized touching

• Nonconsensual touching – CONSENT GOOD DEFENSE

  • (White v. University of Idaho)

    • FACTS:

      • Neher, a music professor (defendant), was a social guest in the house of plaintiff, one his piano students. While she was writing, the professor walked up behind her and touched her back with both of his hands in a movement like playing a keyboard. Plaintiff claimed suffered a strong reaction and required a removal of a rib and damage to nerves. The processor claimed he touched Mrs. White to show her the sensation of certain forms of playing but meant no harm.

    • Even though no harm or to offend her, still battery because it was nonconsensual.

Contact that is unlawful

• Harmful touching as well

• Non-harmful contact: like spitting, smoking in someone’s face

• Offensive contact/touching

• (Shaw v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp)

  • FACTS:

    • The plaintiff truck driver, a non-smoker, shared his cab with heavy Raleigh smoker, and developed lung cancer as a result. Claim for battery for secondhand smoke inhalation.

  • This case was rejected because general knowledge there might be second hand smoke is not enough, but if sued the other driver perhaps it would have worked. Intent to do the act – smoke cigs and let out second hand smoke.

• (Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications Inc.)

  • FACTS:

    • Radio hose who intentionally blew smoke in the face of an antismoking advocate whom he had on his radio program on the date of the Great American Smokeout

  • Defendant intended to cause harmful contact and therefore liable for battery

• (Alcorn v. Mitchell)

  • FACTS:

    • Trial involving Alcorn (defendant) and Mitchell (plaintiff) occurred. Immediately after the court adjourned, Alcorn deliberately spat in Mitchell’s face. Mitchell sued Alcorn for damages of offensive battery.

  • Deliberate act of malice and indignity intended to humiliate

  • Jury may award punitive damages where there are circumstances of malice, willfulness, wantonness, outrage and indignity accompanying the underlying tort.

  • Taking a moral stance, could escalate to more violence

  • Allow nonharmful touchings so that things don’t lead to harmful touching

3. Touching

Doesn’t have to be harmful to the body, just offensive contact in personal space

• Direct contact with person

• Direct contact with anything considered to be close enough so like person

  • Something in hand

  • Some vehicle riding

  • A plate

• Non-contacts/accidental contacts don’t count

• Contact is harmful if it causes actual injury, pain or disfigurement

• Contact is offensive if it would be considered offensive by a reasonable person

• (Shaw v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp)

  • FACTS:

    • The plaintiff truck driver, a non-smoker, shared his cab with heavy Raleigh...