Midterm Flashcards
What are the elements of an intentional tort?
Act
Intent
Casaution
ACT
-A volitional action by D with
-A specific resulting consequence to P
-The ACT element requires proof of –
Some external manifestation of D’s will
INTENT
D’s state of mind: -Desire to cause the particular wrongful result OR -Knowledge to a substantial certainty (KTSC) that the wrongful
CAUSATION
Nexus between D’s action & wrongful
consequence to P D’s intentional act must be
a substantial factor in bringing about the wrongful consequence to P
(D’s actions must be a material part of the resulting consequence to P)
Child Liability Rule
- Children are liable for intentional torts to the same extent as other persons.
- Infancy does not provide automatic immunity from liability
- The child must be capable of
forming & actually form the requisite intent
*Intent Element
MISTAKE DOCTRINE
-If a D intends to do acts which constitute
a tort, it is generally NO DEFENSE that –
-D mistakes the identity of the property
or person he acts on OR
-D mistakenly believes there is a privilege
MENTAL ILLNESS & INTENT
GENERAL RULE
-Mental illness does not provide
automatic immunity from liability
- But, a mentally ill person must be
capable of forming the requisite
intent to be liable
*Institutionalized patients are the exception to this
BATTERY
Battery occurs when …
D’s act intentionally causes
“harmful or offensive contact w/ the P’s person”
- *For the tort of battery,Plaintiffs need not prove:
- contemporaneous awareness
- actual damage$
Battery Act Element
-A volitional act by D that Results in harmful or offensive contact to P’s person
BATTERY requires …
- Contact
- with P’s person
- that is harmful or offensive
HARMFUL CONTACT (Battery Act)
Physical pain
Illness
Physical impairment/alteration
(e.g., unconsented medical procedure)
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel (Battery Contact)
Contact with P’s Person:
- actual physical contact w/ P’s body
or - contacting things intimately associated with & customarily regarded as part of P (ex. grabbing the plate from the Ps hand)
-Contacts that are customary & reasonably necessary to daily living are not actionable
Battery Intention Element
Desire or KTSC that the act bring about harmful or offensive contact to P’s person
Single Intent (Majority Rule) *Battery
“SINGLE INTENT” (majority rule)
P must prove:
Desire or KTSC of contact w/ P’s person
DUAL INTENT (minority rule)
P must prove:
Desire or KTSC of contact w/ P’s person &
Desire or KTSC that contact be harmful or offensive
Battery Causation Element
D’s act must be a substantial factor bringing about the harmful or offensive contact to P’s person
Assault
Assault occurs when …
-D’s act intentionally causes reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact w/ P’s person”
Assault Element of Act
Volitional movement by D that results in P’s reasonable apprehension of IMMINENT harmful or offensive contact to P’s person
Apprehension (Assault act element)
- an expectation, anticipation
- may be fear, but fear not required
- contemporaneous awareness required*
Key Issues for Assault
Apprehension v. Fear Imminent Mere Words Insufficient [split] Reasonable Apprehension [split] Apparent Ability Civil v. Criminal Assault
Mere words Assault (Majority Rule)
mere words alone cannot constitute act for assault
but, mere words can negate an assault
Mere Words Assault (Minority Rule) *restatement approach
mere words cannot constitute act unless w/ D’s acts or circumstances put P in reason. apprehension of H/O contact
Reasonable Apprehension Majority Rule
P’s apprehension must be reasonable
Reasonable apprehension Minority Rule
P’s apprehension must be reasonable unless D knew P’s unreasonable apprehension & used it to cause P apprehn. of H/O contact
Western Union Tel.
Co. v. Hill (Assault)
The tort of assault requires …
The apparent ability to cause harmful or offensive contact
Actual ability is not required
DOCTRINE OF TRANSFERRED INTENT
The law TRANSFERS INTENT where: D INTENDS to commit a TORT against ONE PERSON but instead –. Accomplishes A DIFFERENT TORT against that person;
Accomplishes the intended tort but
against a DIFFERENT PERSON; or
Accomplishes a DIFFERENT TORT against a DIFFERENT PERSON Applies to 5 intentional tords assault battery false imprisonment trespass to chattels trespass to property
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
D’s unlawful acts intentionally cause
- P to be restrained or confined
- Within a bounded area
- Against P’s will
False Imprisonment Act:
Volitional movement by D that results in unlawful confinement/restraint of P in a bounded area against P’s will
False Imprisonment Intent
Desire or KTSC to bring about P’s unlawful confinement/restraint in a bounded area against P’s will
False imprisonment Causation
D’s volitional movement must be a substantial factor in P’s confinement/restraint in the bounded area against P’s will
FALSE IMPRISONMENT ISSUES(5)
Bounded Areas Restraint Methods Unlawful P’s Awareness Against P’s Will
Bounded Area *false imprisonment
- P must be confined or restrained “within a bounded area”
- Bounded areas are those fromwhich P has no reasonable means of escape. Could be small or large, stationary or mobile.
Methods of false imprisonment
physical barriers physical force threats of immediate physical force omissions invalid use of legal authority
Parvi v. City of Kingston (False I)
P must be aware of confinement to recover for false imprisonment
Awareness of Confinement
Majority Rule: P must have contemporaneous awareness
RS Minority Rule: P must prove contemporaneous awareness of confinement or physical harm from it
Minority Rule: Contemporaneous awareness not required
Against P’s Will (False imprisonment)
P must prove restraint/confinement was against his/her will (P did not consent)
- Submission to a verbal demand alone is not restraint against P’s will
- Submission to moral/emotional persuasion is not restraint agst P’s will
- Submission to economic persuasion is not restraint against P’s will
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Definition: D’s outrageous act intentionally or recklessly causes P’s severe emotional distress
Broken down elements:
Outrageous Conduct by D
Severe Emotional Distress to P
Intent & Recklessness
General Damage$ Rules
In general, for most intentional torts, P may recover …
.
nominal damage$ for technical violations &
compensatory damage$ for all proven consequential physical & emotional harm
Int’l Infliction of Emotional Distress (Elements)
ACT:
An extreme & outrageous volitional act by D that
results in P’s severe emotional distress
INTENT OR RECKLESSNESS:
Desire or KTSC that act will bring about P’s severe emotional distress (SED) or
Recklessness as to whether SED will result
CAUSATION:
D’s outrageous volitional act must be a substantial factor bringing about P’s SED
Outrageous Conduct *IIED
-D’s action must exceed all bounds
of conduct tolerated by society
-Based on objective test
-Mere rudeness does not rise to
extreme & outrageous conduct
-But some words may be outrageous
-Repeated or long duration
-words intended to exploit a known sensitivity (RS minority rule)
-insensitive jokes re death/grave bodily harm
Factors increasing likelihood conduct considered outrageous
P’s vulnerability (e.g. child P) Power imbalance (e.g. teacher/student) Special relationships (e.g., innkeepers Ds)
Reckless Disregard (IIED Intent)
Deliberate indifference to a high degree of probability that severe emotional distress will follow
Bystander Plaintiffs
Bystanders are the indirect sufferers of defendant’s conduct