Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Torts > Intentional Torts > Flashcards

Intentional Torts Flashcards

1
Q

IIED Elements

A

(1) D’s conduct must be extreme and outrageous and go beyond all possible bounds of decency and regarded as astrocious and intolerable in a civilized community.
- or abuse of authority
- or knowledge of peculiarly susceptible
- or protected by 1st amendment

(2) D acted intentionally or recklessly
(3) D’s actions must have been the proximate cause of P’s emotional distress
(4) Emotion distress must be so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure such distress

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Battery Definition

A

the right to be free from certain unwanted physical contacts; autonomy over our own bodies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

When liable for a battery?

A

i. Actor acts
- intenting to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a 3rd person (not accident) OR substantially certainty that it will happen
- an imminent apprehension of such a contact

ii. A harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Desired Purpose/Knowledge of Substantial Certainty

A

second component of intent - intent to harm with substantial certainty that the contact/harm will occur/ cause the consequences of the act

(moving chair case - 2 levels of intent - he had to move the chair and also intend to harm with substantial certainty that the harm would occur. )

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Not extent of injury

A

D doesn’t have to intend all the resulting harm that actually occurs; as long as D intended any harm, they are liable for all the harm resulted.

(firework case - doesnt matter if you intend to cause the injuries that are sustained. You intended to make contact and it did so that is all that matters. )

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Scope of Liability (battery)

A

not the result but to invade physical well being is enough.

(gun accidentally goes off when hitting someone in the stomach - you are liable for what your intentions to commit a battery result in. )

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Duel intent

A

(1) intend to contact
(2) intent to be harmful

Mo - no.
(nursing home crazy old lady - D had to possess the necessary intent to be harmful element to commit an assault or battery due to mental state.)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Transferred Intent (traditional and non traditional)

A

Traditional - Intent to harm A but harm B. (driveby case where it didnt matter who or what he was trying to hit it just matters that he intended to shoot.)

Non-traditional - one intended one type of tort (assault) and one committed a different type of tort (battery) and it is okay to be transferred.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Indirect Contacts

A

any part of the body; anything attached to and identified with.

NASA employee got plate knocked out of hand - battery doesnt have to be physical contact to constitute a cause of battery.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Offensive Contacts

A

no actual touching required

blowing pipe smoke case - pipe smoke can constitute a battery

blowing smoke intentionally into one’s face case - this was offensive to a reasonable person. Smoking counts.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Reasonable person

A

If D thinks the contact will not be harmful or offensive, but he’s wrong then the intent requirement is still satisfied.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Harmful

A

obvious - cuts, bruises, broken bones, painful touching

actionable no matter the amount of harm.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Offensive

A

distasteful touching due to reasonable person. Disagreeable or nauseating or painful because of outrage to taste and sensibilities or affronting insulting-ness.

blowing smoke on purpose in face case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Chef spills hot water

A

no intent so accident

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

drunk driver hits child

A

no intent element so negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Got mad and slapped brother and he had a heart attack

A

He is responsible for the heart attack bc it isnt the extent of harm intended only the first intent of contact which was to slap him

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Assault definition

A

the touching of the mind, if not the body (reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Liable for assault

A

(1) he acts
- intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person
- or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, AND
(2) the other is put in imminent apprehension

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

When is assault coupled with battery?

A

when the apprehension due to the assault is followed by the harmful or offensive contact.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Attempted battery but failed and victim knew of the near miss

A

Assault example

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Assault act

A

overt/volitional intending to cause fright or apprehension. (16 yr old hoosier case)

The right to be free from the apprehension of an assualt?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Assault intent

A

(1) intended harmful/off. contact
imminent apprehension of such contact

(2) or imminent apprehension of contact
reasonable apprehension = objective standard
and actual apprehension = subjective state (not as important halloween shooting case) they had to be actually scared.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Imminent harm or apprehension/offensive touching

A

Imminent apprehension must have surrounding circumstances to be a lawful assault. Words alone cannot suffice to be liable for assault

(billboard case)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Employee running at you telling you “I can’t stand looking at you” Assault questions -

A

was the victim in apprehension? Was it reasonable for the victim to be in apprehension? Then, what was the intent of the D

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

FB threat of not being awake in the am

A

No assault bc there is no imminent threat. Only imminent if it was someone’s roommate but bc on fb not imminent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Angry father telling daugther’s bf that if he sees him on property again, etc.

A

No assault bc this is a contingent future threat and if contingent = NO ASSAULT

also, not imminent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Grandma gets spooked by guy in allyway with weapon

A

yes, she had reasonable fear bc they had a weapon so she was in apprehension. However, we have to know his INTENT. Was he intending to cause fright or apprehension? Or was he leaving work?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

False Imprisonment definition

A

designed to protect and address intrusions on the victim’s autonomy-> specifically threats to the victim’s freedom to physically move from place to place.

Note - merely inconveniencing someone’s movement is not sufficient to count as detention (layover from hell)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Subject to false imprisonment

A
  1. he acts intending to confine the other or a 3rd person within boundaries fixed by the actor
  2. his act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement of the other, AND
  3. the other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by is.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

malice (false imprisonment)

A

if an act which causes another’s confinement is done with the intention of causing the confinement, the actor is subject to liability although his act is not inspired by personal hostility or desire to offend.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Actual Knowledge not required

A

lack of personal knowledge is no defense (sheriff case)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Good faith belief/lack of negligence not a defense

A

? (sheriff case) sheriff had no privilege here like cops do due to their split second decision making to protect society.

Not getting the paperwork is not a defense - he is responsible to do that for his job.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Intent for FI

A

INTENT TO DETAIN ONLY (sheriff case)

All you need is intent to detain no requirement the detention occurred maliciously or with some evil intent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Reasonable time allowed

A

(sheriff case) ailed has some privilege bc paperwork takes time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Damages (FI)

A
  1. Damages can include pain and suffering, emotional distress, and lost earnings while incarcerated
  2. Nominal damages - damages in “name only” that are a token award in the absence of actual harm to at least provide some philosophical vindication of the P’s rights.

nominal (at least) if illegal restraint involved (sheriff case - can’t deprive a person of freedom even if they are poor)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Confinement/Detention

A

Total restraint, not mere obstruction (layover from hell)

Can’t be free to move and walk around

37
Q

Shopkeeper’s privilege

A

Example of when good faith works -

Legal justification for retailers to detain a shopper under certain circumstances and in a certain manner but requires (all three)

(1) reasonable time
(2) reasonable manner
(3) reasonable belief that the person in question stole something

38
Q

Trespass

A

(1) An act without permission (permission can be implied from circumstances or express)

(2) an intent to enter the land
- VERY minimal. Only intent is to move from on place (or thing) to the next regardless if you meant to or not.

39
Q

Trespass on someone’s property by accident, negligence, good faith

A

Does NOT matter. The only intent required is if you intended to be on that land, put something on that land or put something above that land.

(casino building case)

40
Q

RT 2 (Trespass)

A

One who intentionally enters land in the possession of another is subject to liability to the possessor for a trespass, although his presence on the land causes no harm to the land, its possessor, or to anything or person in whose security the possessor has a legally protected interest.

41
Q

Matters NOT

A

i. knowledge (immaterial whether the actor knows the land is not his or not)
ii. mistake
iii. intent to deprive
iv. negligence/good faith
v. precautions

42
Q

Damages (trespass)

A

i. No real damage needed (scope is broad)

ii. physical harm to possessor of land even if foreseeability kind of weak because this is a less-favored wrongdoer. (built trench and neighbor has heart attack)
- intent is broad= causation needs to be proved that emotional state led to heart attack.

43
Q

RT 162 (Trespass)

A

One is liable for physical harm once he trespasses irrespective of whether his contact normally would cause him the harm. (neighbor trench and heart attack case)

44
Q

Trespassed and victim died next day

A

This is “during the continuance of trespass” so it still counts

45
Q

See the trespasser on the video and causes heart attack

A

This can be argued both ways. You have to limit trespass somewhere and you could limit it here that it already happened.

46
Q

Neighbor mows your lawn for you when you are out of town.

A

Good faith is not a defense and has no legal barring. A trespass occurred, doesn’t matter is you were there to help and not hurt.

47
Q

Child shooting hoop on private property

A

yes, acted without permission and intended to enter land

48
Q

Drunk drive crashed and lands on property

A

Since he crashed and landed there, there was no intent to enter the land.

49
Q

Blind man doesnt realize he is in his neighbors yard

A

yes, no defense

50
Q

change water flow so it goes to neighbors yard

A

yes, things not just people

51
Q

Chattel

A

Movable or tangible property/good

52
Q

Intent for Trespass to Chattel

A

MUST have intent to dispossess someone else of the chattel. Almost duel intent.

(sears false shoplifting case - the period of time of dispossession was short and there was no showing that the cop meant to dispossess D of his truck.

53
Q

Damages (Trespass to chattel)

A

requires a higher requirement of damages. You have to show damages more than just having the chattel for a brief period of time.

Dispossession= nominal damages?

54
Q

Conversion

A

MORE intent. AND more opportunity for damages

(cell killing case - court found it as conversion bc:

trespass to chattel = trespass to chattel is BORROWING OTHER’S THING.

Conversion = STEALING, TAKING, WHOLLY POSSESSING OF SOMETHING

55
Q

Best argument for trespass/conversion (RT 226)

A

i. Extent of control/dominion
ii. intent to assert control
iii. good faith/bad faith
iv. duration
v. harm to chattel
vi. inconvenience/expense caused

56
Q

Abuse Authority/Power

A

extreme and outrageous character of the conduct may arise from an abuse by the actor of a position, or a relation with the other, which gives him actual or apparent authority over the other, or power to affect his interests. Real/apparent?

(Clinton case - D was not trying to get something from P or them to do something. There were not reprisals/repercussions from the P for declining the offer).

57
Q

Knowledge of peculiarly Susceptibility

A

extreme and outrageous character of the conduct may arise from the actor’s knowledge that the other is peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress, by reason of some physical or mental condition or peculiarity.

(car having to be brought back; husband died case - behavior that would not normally raise to the level of outrage CAN raise to that level when there are other circumstances.

Note dont need both.

58
Q

Subject to IIED Liability (3rd person)

A

(1) to a member of such person’s immediate family who is present at the time, whether or not such distress results in bodily harm
(2) to any person who is present at the time, if such distress results in bodily harm

59
Q

3 legal/fact hurdles

A
  1. Motion judge - “Could a reasonable juror find the action was outrageous?”
  2. Trial Judge - “Has P made a submissible case on outrageous conduct?”
  3. Jury - “Was the conduct of the D in fact outrageous?”
60
Q

Outrageous! Utterly intolerable!

A

Insurance at door case - this is outrageous. We need tough outrageous to control the floodgates.

Note - knowledge of harm they are causing can make a benign act outrageous

61
Q

RT 46 (IIED)

A

The law intervenes only where the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it.

62
Q

Extramarital affairs

A

Does not rise to level of outrage

63
Q

Speech and the 1st amendment

A

signs in public place talking about how they hate military by funeral case - here 1st amendment sheilds the court bc it was a public concern. In society, we value an issue larger than your justice.

If the signs were more towards the family or to the specific person then they would have been a private concern. Or if they didn’t say anything broad. CBT WF case.

64
Q

Causation/Damages (IIED)

A

Doc thinks mom is a drug addict - expert medical or scientific proof of a serious mental injury is not required to support the P’s claim for IIED. There is no requirement for expert testimony to show medical damage. Outrageous proof is enough (and other forms of proof available)!

65
Q

Consent

A

A defense that acknowledges that the P’s interest involves the autonomy to make certain decisions regarding his own body, his peace of mind, his property and/or his freedom of movement.

66
Q

Consent implied

A

conduct can be express or implied by actions within reasonable person’s beliefs. . Affirmative defenses.

(boy scout eye case - consent is the manifestation of willingness to engage in conduct until you tell others that you are done)

67
Q

Scope of injury not anticipated Limit

A

Consent Limit

BSA eye case - it didnt matter that the injury was not anticipated UNLESS football coach case - court ruled that coach had never done this before and that P only agreed to be tackled by people his own age and size. When we consent we are ONLY consenting for specifically what we consent for. (for jury to decide).

68
Q

Fraud/Misrepresentation

A

A defense to consent

  1. husband gave wife genital warts even tho she consented to sex - it is NOT consent if it was a misrepresentation/fraud. One person not revealing information is not full consent then.
  2. husband didn’t know he had hpv - when there is no knowledge then it is not a misrepresentation. One must know to be fraudelent.
69
Q

Defensive Conduct

A

Directed at the P to protect his own interests or interests of others.

Three types: self- defense, defense of others and defense of property

70
Q

Self - Defense Elements

A
  1. Actual Apprehension (be scared)
  2. Reasonable apprehension
  3. Imminent harm
71
Q

Real and reasonable fear

A

D and P fight on bus and P shoots him at his house - normally you cannot use deadly force to repel someone who is not using deadly force on you. However, in this case, you can because fear was genuine (real) and a reasonable person would have agreed that fear occurred.

Fear must be real and reasonable (see test).

72
Q

Defense of Others

A

dad comes to daughter’s house and accidentally shoots ex bf - an assault on a third party in defense of a family member is privileged only if the D had a well-grounded belief that an assault was about to be committed by another on the family member. Can’t use force if no immediate threat.

Immanent harm - the necessity for the defense must be immediate and attacks made in the past or threats for the future will not justify the privilege.

73
Q

True or False: you can’t use force for defense of others if there is no immediate threat

A

true

74
Q

Amount of force in defense of others

A

judge be intended force not result.

dad accidentally shoots daugthers bf

75
Q

Defense of Others; affirmative?

A

yes

76
Q

Affirmative defense

A

burden lies with D to prove the defense AND that there was an immediate threat about to take place.

77
Q

Defense of Property

A

i. reasonable force
ii. deadly/ non-deadly force
iii. no privilege to use deadly force or serious bodily inury to repel threat UNLESS it is also threat to person’s safety to justify self defense (wired gun)
iv. no use of deadly devices/ traps (wired gun)

78
Q

Defense of Property

II. deadly/non-deadly force

A

wired gun case - you have to have a proportional defense and deadly force to repel a trespass by itself absent a threat to the property owner is not proportionate.

In no event can force designed to cause death or serious bodily injury be used to justify protection of mere property rights.

Example - using a dog to keep off property

79
Q

Defense of Property

I. Reasonable Force

A

boy gets fired but wont leave property case - force to defend property has to be reasonable compared to the threat. Circumstances show that he was not in danger, didnt have a ride, wasnt near the operations, the timing, the distance and size difference.

80
Q

Reasonable Test

A

B - Belligerence of the attacker
O - Overt act by the attacker
S - Size Difference and Strength between parties
C - Character and reputation of the attacker
I - Impossibility of a peaceful retreat
T - Threats of serious bodily harm

81
Q

Defense of Property

iii. ?

A

No privilege to use deadly force or serious bodily injury to repel threat UNLESS it is also threat to person’s safety to justify self - defense. (wired gun)

82
Q

Defense of Property iv?

A

no use of deadly devices/traps.

83
Q

Necessity

A

Purpose of conduct is to protect other valuable property rights from sources of danger unrelated to the P. Rights of property give way to higher laws of necessity. Threat of injury more severe than the tort committed.

84
Q

Public Necessity

A

Public interest threatened; D acts with reasonable belief conduct needed to prevent threat - not liable for damages.

85
Q

Private Necessity

A

Privilege is incomplete; private interest threatened; not liable for nominal or punitive damages; liable for actual compensatory damages.

86
Q

Assault Requirements

A
  1. Act intending to cause fright or harm
  2. Actual and Reasonable Apprehension
  3. Imminent harm or apprehension
87
Q
  1. IIED

Severe emotional distress

A

Most of the time courts require that P have sought medical aid for this distress. However, P doesn’t have to prove that he suffered physical consequences from the distress.

Intensity and duration are factors used to consider the severity.

88
Q

RT 46

A

IIED
-abuse by the actor or a position of power that gives him authority over her.

  • Actors knows P is particularly suspectible

– The law intervenes only where the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it. The intensity and the duration of the distress are factors to be considered in determining its severity.

  • also suseptible for third parties (bodily harm required and immidiate family present (no bodily harm required)

Torts (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions