Intent T Flashcards
What elements Will determine if P prevail against D in violent play?
Depends on
-Consent (expressed or implied)
-How was the game played from the beginning and if P continued to play
-did D intentionally use force beyond the scope of contact
False imprisonment
Held in a confined space, is aware, with no reasonable way to escape
D need to have intended to confine P
If p wasn’t aware of confinement then need actual injury
Shopkeepers priv.
-Reasonable grounds to believe stealing or committed a felony
-detention is for a reasonable time
-conducted in a reasonable manner
Conversion
-Trespass to property/ interfering with p right of possession in chattel (no permission)
-intent to perform the act to bring the interference with the plaintiff right of possession
-causation (but 4 and proximate)
-Damage to property that is so substantial that it turns to act of domination/deprive of possession
Remedy for conversion
P gets the fmv at the time of conversion (the full price it costs)
Once see took prop, for a length of time that deprived owner, and there was a damage to the property… even if can be repaired, d pays the fmv when he got the property not the repairs rate.
Remedy for trespass to chattel
Gets value of the thing b4 trespass
Trespass to chattel
Intent to access the real or personal property without permission don’t matter if didn’t know
Actually had permission when you took the thing before you messed it up.
Need to show interference and damages (owner was deprived and actual damage)
Battery
Intent to cause harmful or offensive touch to persons body
Offensive- without consent or reasonable person would find it offensive
Body- literally body or anything attached
Don’t need proof of damages
Summary Judgment
The person is alleging that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the party is entitled to judgement as a matter of law
Self defense
The defendant has to prove that he reasonably believed that there was a threat of harmful or physical contact … after, can use force as reasonably Nec. For protection against potential harm but defendant will be liable for force that’s beyond what was necessary
Mpc idea of retreat
Retreat if can do so safely if not can use deadly force. However when in home, don’t need to retreat.
Assault
Apparent, present, physical authority
To complete the the threaten battery of a tort of assault
“ must look look like about to do the act not need to look physically able to do the act”
IIED
-D does a act that’s reckless or with intent that has a extreme and outrageous conduct
-causation ( d’s actions is what cause p’s distress)
- damages amounting to servere emotional distress DONT NEED TO BE PHYSICAL INJURIES
Who can be liable for a tort?
Do they have to know that they are committing a tort?
Can it be by accident?
Person committing it and the person that told them to commit it
Can be liable for tort even if did it by accident
Who is liable if two joint tortfeasors in a negligence and intentional tort action
Since joint tortfeasors both are lie to be sued however the neg. Actor will be excused and will be able to be indemnified by the intentional tortfeasor.
Trespass to land
Physical invasion, causation, intent to physically invade property (intent to enter the land not commit a crime)
Sensitive P and ordinary contacts of daily life
If p gave no indication that did not want to be touched that are part of crowded society of life. P gives consent to D as long as D touch was not offensive or harmful contact or unreasonable nor inconsistent to give rise to a claim of battery.
IIED vs NIED
-IIED do not require physical injuries
IIED need intent
-nied is negligence
- nied focus on zone of danger and relationships
Force to retrieve property
Possessor can use nonlethal force to protect their possessory right only if force used is reasonable under the circumstances
Real prop can use deadly force
Private nec. Vs public nec.
Private nec is a privilege; however, liable for damages caused to homeowner.
Public nec is an emergency with complete priv. With no liability towards damage to home owner
Res Pisa
The facts strongly indicate that the plaintiff injuries resulted from d’s neglence.
Negligence attribute to the defendant because it’s the type that would happen in defendants control
Sensitive plaintiff “thin skull doc”
Takes plaintiff how you find them
Joint tortfeassors
When either one of the acts would have cause the injury
Multiple ppl but only one did the injury just Dont know who
Just need to show that at least one in the group had exclusive control
