Intentional Torts

Question 1

prima facie case for any intentional tort

Answer 1

1) act (volitional movement) by the defendant

2) Intent by the defendant

3) Causation of the result to the plaintiff from the defendant’s act

Question 2

(hypersensitivity) Recovery for intentional torts is allowed only when:

Answer 2

a reasonable person would be able to establish the claim (hypersensitivity is ignored)

Question 3

is incapacity a defense for intentional torts?

Answer 3

No. Everyone is “capable” of intent, meaning that everyone can act with the desire to bring about tortious consequences

young children and persons who are mentally incompetent will be liable for their intentional torts.

Question 4

intent for intentional torts is:

Answer 4

intent to bring about the forbidden consequences that are the basis of the tort. The defendant does not need to intend the specific injury that results

Question 5

transferred intent doctrine

Answer 5

D intends to commit a tort against one person but instead commits a different tort against that person or a tort against a different person

ONLY for:
- assault
- battery
- false imprisonment
- trespass to land
- trespass to chattels

Question 6

causation is satisfied if

Answer 6

defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.

Question 7

battery elements

Answer 7

1) harmful or offensive contact (direct or indirect)

2) contact must be with Ps person (anything connected to P)

3) Intent

4) Causation

*NO damages required - recovery can be punitive or nominal

Question 8

when is contact harmful/offensive

Answer 8

harmful if it causes actual injury, pain, or disfigurement.

offensive if it would be considered offensive to a reasonable person.

consent implied for the ordinary contacts of everyday life

Question 9

elements of assault

Answer 9

1) Act by the defendant creating a reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff (fear not required)

2) Of an immediate battery (harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person)

3) Intent

4) Causation

*NO damages required - recovery can be punitive or nominal

Question 10

effect of words for assault

Answer 10

usually words are not enough - must be coupled with conduct

can NEGATE reasonable apprehension (conduct but D states they will not batter P)

Question 11

false imprisonment elements

Answer 11

1) act or omission on the part of D that confines or restrains P

2) P must be confined to a bounded area (no reasonable means of escape known to P)

3) P knows of the confinement (or is harmed by it)

4) Intent

5) Causation

*NO damages required - recovery can be punitive or nominal

Question 12

IIED elements

Answer 12

1) act by D amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct

2) P must suffer severe emotional distress

3) Intent: recklessness as to the effect of Ds conduct will satisfy

4) Causation

5) Actual damages: P must show they suffered severe emotional distress, but proof of physical injury generally isn’t required. The more outrageous the conduct, the less proof of damages is required.

Question 13

IIED: when is conduct extreme and outrageous

Answer 13

exceeds all bounds of decency tolerated in a civilized society

mere insults are USUALLY not enough unless:
- D is a common carrier or innkeeper
- P is fragile class (young, elderly, pregnant)

targeting KNOWN sensitivity is outrageous

Question 14

In IIED in by bystander cases, causation can be shown by:

Answer 14

either prima facie case elements of emotional distress OR

(1) P present when the injury occurred

(2) the distress resulted in bodily harm or the plaintiff is a close relative of the third person AND

(3) D knew these facts.

Question 15

trespass to land elements

Answer 15

1) physical invasion

2) of Ps real property (airspace and subterranean space included to a reasonable distance)

3) Intent to enter that particular piece of land

4) Causation

*Damages not required

Question 16

Trespass to chattels elements

Answer 16

1) Act by D that interferes with P’s right of possession in a chattel (can be damaging or dispossession)

2) Intent to do the act of interference (D’s mistaken belief that they own the chattel is no defense)

3) Causation

4) Actual damages required: not necessarily to the chattel, but at least to a possessory right

Question 17

conversion elements

Answer 17

1) Act by D that interferes with the plaintiff’s right of possession in a chattel (theft, wrongful transfer, wrongful detention, substantially changing, severely damaging, misusing)

2) Actual damages: Interference is serious enough in nature or consequences to warrant that the defendant pay the chattel’s full value

3) intent

4) causation

Question 18

Intentional tort defenses

Answer 18

consent

defense of self/others/property

reentry onto land

recapture of chattels

necessity

Question 19

consent defense

Answer 19

1) consent (express or implied)

2) consent is valid (P had capacity to consent) (no mistake/fraud/duress exception)

3) D stayed within boundaries of the consent

Question 20

Consent by mistake

Answer 20

mistake will undo express consent if the defendant knew of and took advantage of the mistake

Question 21

consent by fraud

Answer 21

consent induced by fraud will be invalidated if it goes to an essential matter, but not a collateral matter

Question 22

consent by duress

Answer 22

consent obtained by duress will be invalidated unless the duress is only threats of future action or future economic deprivation

Question 23

self-defense is:

Answer 23

person reasonably believes that they are being or are about to be attacked, they may use such force as is reasonably necessary to protect against injury

Question 24

is there a duty to retreat

Answer 24

majority rule: no duty to retreat.

Modern trend: imposes a duty to retreat before using deadly force if this can be done safely, UNLESS the actor is in their home.

Question 25

self-defense to the initial aggressor

Answer 25

Self-defense is not available to the initial aggressor unless the other party responds to the aggressor’s nondeadly force by using deadly force

Question 26

can self-defense be extended if third party was injured while the actor was defending themselves?

Answer 26

May extend. But might be liable to third person if they deliberately injured the third person

Question 27

self-defense: is mistake allowed?

Answer 27

A reasonable mistake as to the existence of the danger is allowed.

Question 28

self-defense: how much force may be used?

Answer 28

only that force that reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the harm (including deadly force). If more force than is reasonably necessary is used, the defense is lost

Question 29

when is defense of others available?

Answer 29

One may use force to defend another when they reasonably believe that the other person could have used force to defend themselves.

Question 30

defense of others: is mistake allowed?

Answer 30

A reasonable mistake as to whether the other person is being attacked or has a right to defend themselves is permitted.

Question 31

defense of others: how much force may be used?

Answer 31

defender may use as much force as they could have used in self-defense if they were the one threatened with the injury.

Question 32

when is defense of property available

Answer 32

One may use reasonable force to prevent the commission of a tort against their real or personal property request to desist or leave must first be made UNLESS it clearly would be futile or dangerous.

Question 33

can defense of property be used AFTER tort is committed against them?

Answer 33

generally does not apply once the tort has been committed BUT may use force in hot pursuit of another who has tortiously dispossessed the owner of their chattels This defense is not available against one with a privilege. Whenever an actor has a privilege to enter onto the land of another because of necessity, recapture of chattels, etc., that privilege will supersede the privilege of the land possessor to defend their property.

Question 34

defense of property - is mistake allowed?

Answer 34

reasonable mistake is allowed as to whether an intrusion has occurred or whether a request to desist is required. NOT allowed as to whether the entrant has a privilege (for example, necessity) that supersedes the defense of property right, unless the entrant conducts the entry so as to lead the defendant to reasonably believe it is not privileged (such as by refusing to say what the necessity is).

Question 35

defense of property - how much force?

Answer 35

Reasonable force. NO FORCE causing death or serious bodily harm unless + a serious threat of bodily harm.

Question 36

defense of property - shoplifting detentions

Answer 36

shopkeeper has privilege to detain suspected shoplifter for investigation if: 1) reasonable belief as to the fact of theft 2) conducted in a reasonable manner and only nondeadly force can be used 3) reasonable period of time and only for the purpose of making an investigation

Question 37

reentry onto land defense

Answer 37

At common law - could use force to reenter land only when an intruder came into possession tortiously Under modern law - self-help not allowed. there are summary procedures for recovering possession of real property

Question 38

public necessity

Answer 38

if they acted to avert an “imminent public disaster. Actor is not liable to pay for damages.

Question 39

recapture of chattels defense

Answer 39

reasonable force may be used only when in hot pursuit of one who has obtained possession wrongfully

Question 40

private necessity

Answer 40

if the action was to prevent serious harm to a limited number of people. Under private necessity, the actor must pay for any injury they cause (unless the act was to benefit the property owner)

Question 41

necessity is only a defense in what type of intentional tort

Answer 41

property torts