Intentional Torts Flashcards
(45 cards)
What four elements are required for the prima facie case for Battery?
- _______ ________ Contact
- _______ Intent
- _______ ________
- _______ Connection
- Voluntary Harmful/Offensive Contact
- Wrongful Intent
- Physical harm/offense
- Causal Connection
Harmful Intent in Battery is defined as both
- the person acts with the purpose of producing that consequence OR
- the person acts knowing that consequence is _________ certain to result
Substantial
Harmful Intent can result from a person acting with the purpose of producing that consequence or the prospects knowing the consequence is SUBSTANTIALLY CERTAIN to result.
How does the case of Talmage v. Smith (aka Stick v. Eye) apply to the Doctrine of Transferred Intent?
In Talmage v. Smith, the plaintiff was struck in the eye by stick thrown by the defendant. The defendant alleged that they did not see the plaintiff and were trying to throw the stick at the plaintiff’s companions, and thus did not intend to injure the plaintiff. The court held the defendant’s argument immaterial.
This confirms the principle of ‘Transferred Intent’. The defendant intended to hit someone with the stick and inflict injury. The fact that the injury resulted to another than intended does not relieve the defendant from responsibility.
What are the differences between Trespass to Chattels and Conversion?
_fasd
Trespass to Property Prima Facie
- Voluntary _____ onto someone’s property
- ________ (_______ to ‘be where you are’)
- _______
- Causation
Prima Facie
- Voluntary Intrusion onto someone’s property
- Intent (Intent to ‘be where you are’)
- Damages (Nominal damages presumed for all tangible invasions; must be proven for intangible invasions)
- Causation
Trespass to Property
How is the requirement concerning the Prima Facie requirement for ‘Damages’ different between tangible (physical) Trespass to Property and intangible Trespass to Property?
Nominal damages are presumed for all tangible invasions; However, damages must be proven for intangible invasions.
Trespass to Property
If the defendant voluntary intrudes onto plaintiff’s property, intending to be where they are on plaintiff’s property, but does NO damage, what is the court’s ruling?
The court may still treat as a Trespass to Property. Nominal damages re presumed.
Trespass to Property
What is considered to constitute one’s ‘Property’ or land?
Courts generally consider a person’s land to include air space above and subsurface space below, to the height or depth a person can make beneficial use of such space. Thus Courts consider someones property to include land above and below the ground level.
False Imprisonment
Is the below an example of False Imprisonment?
Burglar tells homeowner “Face the wall and don’t turn around or I’ll shoot you.”
A. Yes, False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment
A. Yes, False Imprisonment
This is a clear example of confinement by a threat of immediate physical force.
False Imprisonment
Is the below an example of False Imprisonment?
Patient has appointment for 1 p.m., but physician leaves her in waiting room until 4:30.
A. Yes, False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment
This is clearly not a confinement. The patient can leave at any time. Remaining in a room voluntarily to accommodate the desires of another is not confinement.
False Imprisonment
Is the below an example of False Imprisonment?
Employer says “You leave the office today and you’re fired.”
A. Yes, False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment
Plaintiff could leave and obtain later legal relief should the termination be wrongful, so there is no confinement. “[T]he use of threats of economic retaliation or termination of employment to coerce a victim to remain also do not constitute false imprisonment.”
False Imprisonment
Is the below an example of False Imprisonment?
“If you leave, I’ll shoot your child sitting next to me.”
A. Yes, False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment
A. Yes, False Imprisonment
This is a clear case of confinement by other duress.
False Imprisonment
Is the below an example of False Imprisonment?
“If you leave, I’ll shoot you on the street next time I see you.”
A. Yes, False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment
This may be a deadly serious threat, but it is not a threat of immediate physical force. Consequently, no false imprisonment.
False Imprisonment
Is the below an example of False Imprisonment?
Driver, trying to impress passenger with speed of car, refuses to pull over and let her out.
A. Yes, False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment
A. Yes, False Imprisonment
A driver who refuses to stop and let a protesting passenger get out of the car would have a duty to allow the passenger to leave. Ignorance of this duty results in the drivers’ liability.
False Imprisonment
Is the below an example of False Imprisonment?
P is imprisoned for contempt for failing to produce corporate books. P asks D, who has books, to produce them. D refuses.
A. Yes, False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment
A person having custody of the books of a corporation has no duty to another person to produce them.
False Imprisonment
Is the below an example of False Imprisonment?
Customer accidentally locks himself in bathroom in defendant store. Store employees laugh instead of releasing him.
A. Yes, False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment
A. Yes, False Imprisonment
As an employee of the store, defendant has a duty to act to release the plaintiff. Ignorance of this duty results in the drivers’ liability.
False Imprisonment
Is the below an example of False Imprisonment?
Customer accidentally locks himself in bathroom in defendant store. Other customers laugh instead of releasing him.
A. Yes, False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment
B. No, not False Imprisonment
Other customers in a store have no duty to open a washroom.
False Imprisonment
True or false: all of the below can be considered appropriate, awardable damages for a person who has been Falsely Imprisoned.
Physical injury or injury to health
Physical discomfort or inconvenience
Mental suffering and humiliation
Harm to reputation or credit
True, all of these are awardable elements of damages for a plaintiff in a false imprisonment case.
Plaintiff may even be able to collect special and unusual consequential damages, such as theft of his car because it was unguarded while plaintiff was confined.
False Imprisonment
True or false: both of the below can be considered appropriate, awardable damages for a person who has been Falsely Imprisoned.
Loss of time
Punitive damages
True. Both are awardable elements of damages for a plaintiff in a false imprisonment case.
However, “Loss of time” is mentioned in older cases as an appropriate element of damages; perhaps the cases mean loss of earning capacity for the time imprisoned–that would fit more closely with today’s ideas on damages.
Also, as an intentional tort, false imprisonment ordinarily supports a punitive award, but if defendant’s actions were mistaken and in good faith, such damages may be withheld.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Which of the below necessary elements of IIED differs from all other Intentional Torts?
A. IIMD requires specific intent on the part of the defendant.
B. IIMD requires defendant’s actions reach the level of extreme and outrageous conduct.
C. IIMD requires defendant’s actions cause mental distress in plaintiff.
D. IIMD requires plaintiff suffer severe emotional or mental distress.
Answer: D
The other intentional torts–all look to the defendant’s actions alone. IIMD looks not only to the defendant’s actions, but also to a threshold level of damages to the plaintiff. Defendant is not liable for minor mental upset: the distress must be severe. That requirement is intended to limit use of and disfavor the tort, and so it is almost certainly a response of the courts to the concerns mentioned in the previous question. The requirement also makes IIMD unique.
Per B, it is true that defendant’s actions must be extreme, while defendant’s actions in the other intentional torts can be tortious in only a technical sense, such as converting another’s property in good faith. At the same time, the defendant in IIMD must invade the plaintiff’s interest (in an extreme sense) just the same as a defendant must invade the plaintiff’s interest in all the torts. That doesn’t make IIMD truly unique.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Is the below an example of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?
D calls P on a cell phone in a theater and says “You’d better rush home. Your house is burning to the ground.”
A. Yes, IIED
B. No, not IIED
A. Yes, IIED
Telling someone he has lost his home seems “beyond all possible bounds of decency.”
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Is the below an example of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?
D, in a fit of road rage, stomps up to P’s car, grabs a small dog from P’s lap, and throws the dog into freeway traffic, where it is struck and killed.
A. Yes, IIED
B. No, not IIED
A. Yes, IIED
This case was in the news. D received three years in prison! The judge must have been outraged. Cf. Restatement § 46 cmt. f, illus. 11 (IIMD liability when D shoots dog of pregnant woman). See also Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 46 comment d (2012).
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Is the below an example of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?
P seeks treatment for self and baby from D physician, who responds with insults and a brush off.
A. Yes, IIED
B. No, not IIED
A. Yes, IIED
Frankly, this conduct doesn’t seem outrageous or atrocious, but the court in Rockhill v. Pollard, 485 P.2d 28 (Ore. 1971) thought it was actionable. The physician/patient relationship must have increased the outrage.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Is the below an example of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?
D approaches P, a complete stranger, on the street and invites P to join D in illicit sexual intercourse.
A. Yes, IIED
B. No, not IIED
B. No, not IIED
Precedent says this is not atrocious conduct. No mere invitation to illicit sexual intercourse is actionable, absent hounding or indecent exposure. See Prosser & Keeton § 12, at 61; Epstein § 1.8, at 18.
