Flashcards in Intentional Torts Deck (45):
Prima Facie cases for intentional tort liability generally require the plaintiff to prove...?
(i) Act by defendant
The "act" requirement for intentional tort liability refers to a _________ __________ on the defendant's part.
An actor "intends" the consequences of his conduct if his purpose in acting is to bring about these consequences.
An actor "intends" the consequences of his conduct if he knows with substantial certainty that these consequences will result.
Rule for Transferred Intent
The intent to commit a tort against one person is transferred to the other tort or to the injured person, such as when the defendant intends to commit a tort against one person but instead (i) commits a different tort against that person, (ii) commits the same tort as intended but against a different person, or (iii) commits a different tort against a different person.
Limitations on the Use of Transferred Intent
Tort intended and tort that results are among the following:
c) False Imprisonment
d) Trespass to land
e) Trespass to chattels
Elements of Battery
1. intentional (desire/purpose or substantial certainty [if I throw a rock in a crowd, I'm certain someone'll get hit])
2. contact that's
3. harmful/offensive (being either physical person or dignity)
Battery protects two discrete interests:
(1) the interest in physical integrity, i.e. freedom from harmful contacts
(2) a dignitary interest, i.e. freedom from offensive bodily contact
Assault protects against:
(a) Threats of harmful or offensive contact
(b) Threats of false imprisonment
Punitive damages may be recovered where...
...defendant acted with malice.
Elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(1) intentional or reckless
(2) extreme or outrageous conduct (beyond the bounds of common decency) which
(3) causes *severe emotional distress (physical manifestation unnecessary, psychiatric witness probably)
*Severe emotional distress can be proven by insanely extreme conduct (such as leaving a dead dog on someone's porch)
Elements of Assault
(1) intentional (desire/purpose or substantial certainty) act that causes
(2) imminent apprehension of
(3) harmful/offensive (being either physical person or dignity) contact that is
Elements of False Imprisonment
(1) a willful detention
(2) performed without consent
(3) without the authority of the law
Dual Intent Rule
Must prove both the intent to perform the action and the intent for the resulting harm that arises from the action
In a workplace order, to establish "intent" in an intentional tort committed by an employer against his employee, the following THREE elements must be demonstrated:
(1) knowledge by the employer of the existence of a dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality or condition within its business operation;
(2) knowledge by the employer that if the employee is subjected by his employment to such dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality or condition, then harm to the employee will be a substantial certainty and not just a high risk; and
(3) that the employer, under such circumstances, and with such knowledge, did act to require the employee to continue to perform the dangerous task.
Minority rule of intent:
It only needs to be a voluntary movement, meaning act alone is sufficient.
The parameters for "detention" in False Imprisonment are:
(1) Kept from leaving (not entering) a bounded area by actual or apparent barriers
(2) No REASONABLE means of escape (does not require heroism, embarrassment, discomfort)
(3) Must be aware of the confinement, or possibly (such as in Cal.) unaware and still suffer harm as a result of false imprisonment
For intentional infliction of emotional distress, these elements help in determining whether certain conduct is extreme and outrageous:
a. the relationship between the parties
b. the susceptibility of the plaintiff to emotional distress
c. the abuse of a position of power
d. the extreme and outrageous character of the conduct is, itself, possibly used to evidence that severe emotional distress existed.
What counts as "apparent" barriers in false imprisonment?
1. The victim must believe they can't leave
2. Words alone count (such as a threat)
3. Force or threat of IMMEDIATE harm against the victim, victim's family, or property counts
Three ways to satisfy the "intent" requirement in False Imprisonment:
1. Purpose or desire to cause confinement
2. Substantial certainty
3. Transferred intent
Two forms of consent:
The ways one can vitiate consent:
1. Exceeding Consent
The act goes beyond the original consent
Consent is ineffective if...
...the defendant knows or has reason to know the person lacks the capacity to consent to the conduct.
To constitute a consent, assent must be...
...to the invasion itself and not merely to the act which causes it. See Restatement, Torts 53.
The 2 aspects to the effectiveness of consent:
1. Abnormality on the part of the alleged victim
2. Knowledge on the part of the alleged attacker
In a fight, when does the law NOT impose a duty to retreat often required in self-defense?
When a person who is (1) free from fault and bringing on a difficulty is (2) attacked in his home.
If a person voluntarily (aggressively and willingly) enters into a fight, he cannot invoke the doctrine of self-defense unless he...
(1) first abandons the fight,
(2) withdraws from it, and
(3) gives notice to his adversary that he has done so; or
(4) is defending against deadly force despite "intentionally invade[ing] any of another's interests of personality...." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 71(c) cmt. d.
The majority rule for defense of others requires that...
...the person one is defending must also have the privilege of self-defense.
Elements of Self-Defense
1. Actual or apparent necessity
2. Defendant believes necessary
3. Other concerns
a. reasonable force
b. retreat rules
c. verbal provocation
d. excessive force
Elements for Defense of Others
1. Actual necessity vs. Apparent necessity
2. Reasonable force
Public Necessity privileges one to...
...damage private property to protect a public good (complete defense), such as shooting a rabid dog.
Private Necessity privileges one to...
...damage private property which is less valuable than one's own property to save one's own property (incomplete defense), but will entail compensating for damages.
Defenses to Intentional Torts
3. Defense of Others
4. Defense of Property
The right to confine a person is privileged under under these conditions:
1. there is evidence of danger of immanent injury/harm
2. the confinement lasts only as long as is necessary to get the person to the proper authorities.
3. the actor must use the least restrictive means of preventing the apprehended harm
If an act is done with the intention of inflicting upon another an offensive but not a harmful bodily contact, or of putting another in apprehension of either a harmful or offensive bodily contact, and such act causes a bodily contact to the other, the actor is liable to the other for a battery although the act was not done with the intention of bringing about the resulting bodily harm. If an act is done with the intention of affecting a third person in the manner stated above, but causes a harmful bodily contact to another, the actor is liable to such other as fully as though he intended so to affect him.
When a person reasonably believes that another has stolen or is attempting to steal property, that person as legal justification to detain the other in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to investigate ownership of the property.
Objective & Subjective Standards in Self-Defense
(A) Objectively, would a reasonable person would respond this way?
(B) Subjectively, could the plaintiff have reasonably believed he was in danger?
Ways consent can be implied by law:
a. An emergency situation for treatment
b. Failing to object in court waives the right
What constitutes "offensive" contact?
The requirement that the contact "offen[d] a reasonable sense of personal dignity" (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 19) allows actors to make contacts with others that the ordinary person will not find offensive, without fear of a suit for battery.
In some jurisdictions, self-defense requires...
...no reasonable means of retreat. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 65(3).
Apparent Necessity in Self-Defense of Others
Minority rule that the intervenor is authorized to act on his reasonable perception in order to defend a third party.
Emergency Action without Consent
Restatement (Second) of Torts, §892D:
Conduct that injures another does not make the actor liable to the other, even though the other has not consented to it
(a) an emergency makes it necessary or apparently necessary, in order to prevent harm to the other, to act before there is opportunity to obtain consent from the other or one empowered to consent for him, and
(b) the actor has no reason to believe that the other, if he had the opportunity to consent, would decline.
Actual Necessity in Self-Defense of Others
Majority rule that the intervenor is authorized to act in order to defend a third party only when that party also has the privilege of self-defense.