Intentional Torts Cases Flashcards
Mohr v. Williams
Rule: An absence of evil intent or negligence on the part of a defendant does not operate as a defense to the civil tort of assault and battery.
Court held: Mohr did not consent to the operation by Williams on her left ear, and thus Williams is liable for assault and battery. An absence of evil intent or negligence on the part of a defendant does not operate as a defense to the civil tort of assault and battery. Assault and battery occurs from any unlawful or unauthorized touching of the person of another.
Hoofnel v. Segal
Doctors recommended π who have limited education (couldn’t read) have her uterus removed. She declined the procedure but needed surgery for something else. Prior to surgery she signed consent form allowing doctors to remove her uterus.
Court held: Signed consent form supercedes any prior conversations. To rule otherwise would render consent forms completely useless.
McGuire v. Almy
Rule: An insane individual who is capable of forming the intent to strike another and acts upon that intent is liable to the individual for injuries suffered.
Court holding: As long as Almy possessed the requisite intent, her insanity is not a defense to liability for assault and battery.
Courvoisier v. Raymond
Rule: Self-defense may constitute a defense to liability for intentional torts, even if the actions taken by a defendant in self-defense result from a mistaken but reasonable belief that the defendant is under attack.
Court held: Self-defense may constitute a defense to liability for intentional torts. This is true even if the actions taken by a defendant in self-defense result from a mistaken but reasonable belief that the defendant is under attack.
Dougherty v. Stepp
Rule: Every unauthorized, and thus unlawful, entry onto the land of another constitutes a trespass regardless of whether actual damage is caused to the land.
Court held: Every unauthorized, and thus unlawful, entry onto the land of another constitutes a trespass regardless of whether actual damage is caused to the land. If the unauthorized entry is completed, the law will infer that some damage has occurred-even if it is merely trampling of grass.
Bird v. Holbrook
Rule: Although some force may be used to defend a property interest, the force must not be intended solely to inflict bodily harm upon trespassers.
Court held: Although some force may be used to defend a property interest, the force must not be intended solely to inflict bodily harm upon trespassers. If Holbrook intended to set up the spring gun to merely guard his garden from intruders, he would have posted signs warning innocent entrants of its presence. Instead, Holbrook intentionally refused to post warning signs about the spring gun because he wanted it to be undetectable to intruders.
Katko v. Brinney
Rule: A person, in protecting his property, may not use force calculated to cause death or serious bodily injury, except where there is also a threat to personal safety that justifies self‑defense.
Court held: A person, in protecting his property, may not use force calculated to cause death or serious bodily injury, except where there is also a threat to personal safety that is sufficient to justify self‑defense.
*Couple set up a gun to ward off trespassers and thieves.
Ploof v. Putnam
Rule: Necessity caused by an “act of God” or other disaster resulting in an inability to control movements justifies entries upon land and interferences with personal property that would otherwise have been trespasses
Court held: Necessity caused by the storm justified Ploof’s need to dock his boat at Putnam’s dock, and Putnam is liable for damages and injuries suffered by Ploof and his family as a result of Putnam’s untying Ploof’s boat. Necessity caused by an “act of God” or other disaster resulting in an inability to control movements justifies entries upon land and interferences with personal property that would otherwise have been trespasses.
Vincent v. Lake Erie
Rule: A party who damages the property of another while acting out of private necessity must compensate the property owner for the resulting damage.
Court holding: Erie acted prudently and out of a private necessity to protect its boat, but it is nevertheless liable for the damage to Vincent’s dock. The general rules that govern private property rights may be “suspended by forces beyond human control.” In such cases, a party will not be liable for property damage that results from an “act of God.” Nevertheless, where a party acts deliberately to protect her property, even if her actions are entirely reasonable under the circumstances, she will be liable to another property owner for damages that result. I
White v. University of Idaho
Music professor touches girl and she needs a rib removed. Court refused to incorporate “requirement of offensive intent”
Rule: Any touching that is not consented to is at least technically a battery.
