Intentional Torts Notes

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...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Tort Law Outlines.