Intentional Torts Kaplan Foundation Course MBE Questions Flashcards
Liability for Battery
A person is subject to liability for battery if she acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other and an offensive or harmful contact directly or indirectly results. An act which is not done with such an intention does not make the actor liable for mere offensive contact
Injuries while engaged in sporting activities
According to Restatement of Torts 2d, Section 50, taking part in a game manifests a willingness to submit to such bodily contacts that are permitted by its rules or usages. Participating in such a game does not manifest consent to contacts which are prohibited by the rules of the game
Define contacts for a tort of assault and battery
Remember that protection against unpermitted contacts extends to any part of the body, or to anything which is attached to it and practically identified with it. Thus, Prosser states, “Contact with the plaintiff’s clothing, or with a cane, a paper, or any object held in his hand will be sufficient; and the same is true of the chair in which he sits, the horse or the car which he is riding or driving,” Law of Torts, pg. 34.
What is a valid defense for the intentional tort of battery
Thus, consent would be a valid defense for the intentional tort of battery
A consensual sexual relationship would have what type of claim under invasion of right to privacy.
None. A consensual sexual relationship would not result in an invasion of right to privacy.
what kind of relationship can be liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress
extreme and outrageous nature of conduct may arise from the abuse by the defendant of a relation or position which gives the defendant actual or apparent authority over the victim. In particular, police officers, school authorities, landlords, and collecting creditors have been held liable for extreme abuse of their position.
in order to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress
the plaintiff must suffer bodily harm or injury.
Distinguish between “intentional” infliction of emotional distress and “negligent” infliction of emotional distress
in order to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff must suffer bodily harm or injury, and intentional infliction of emotion distress is the extreme and outrageous nature of conduct may arise from the abuse by the defendant of a relation or position which gives the defendant actual or apparent authority over the victim.
What is one of the most popular Multistate testing areas deals with civil suits brought by third parties
for intentional (or reckless) infliction of emotional distress.
As a general rule, in order for a third party to recover for intentional (or reckless) infliction of emotional distress there are two requirements must be satisfied:
(1) the third party must be a close family member of the person to whom the defendant is directing his (extreme and outrageous) conduct and (2) the defendant should be aware of the presence of the third person. If the third person is not a close family member, then he must suffer bodily harm in order to prevail.
As a general rule, private necessity will excuse
tortious conduct aimed at property. However, according to Restatement of Torts, 2d, Section 263, which specifically addresses the privilege of private necessity as applied to trespass to chattels or conversion, “Where the act is for the benefit of the actor or a third person, he is subject to liability for any harm caused by the exercise of the privilege.
When is a defendant liable for conversion of a chattel
According to Restatement of Torts 2d, Section 244, “An actor is not relieved of liability to another for conversion (or for trespass to chattels) by his belief, because of a mistake of law or fact not induced by the other, that he has possession of the chattel.”
Multistate example in which students are required to distinguish between crimes and torts for chattels is defined by
The type of recovery, and if the plaintiff is seeking the value of the chattel, which are civil damages
One is subject to liability for trespass irrespective of whether
he causes harm to any legally protected interest of the other, if he intentionally enters the land in possession of the other.
A defendant can still be liable for damages to another persons land when
did not intentionally drive his vehicle onto the homeowner’s property may be liable for trespass because he was operating his car in a reckless manner.
