Flashcards in Part One: Intentional Torts Deck (107)
In General, what is the prima facie case for an "intentional tort"?
1. Act by Defendant;
2. Intent (general or specific);
What are the 7 relevant intentional torts?
INTENTIONAL TORTS AGAINST PERSON
3. False Imprisonment
4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
INTENTIONAL TORTS AGAINST PROPERTY
1. Trespass to Land
2. Trespass to Chattels
For the purpose of establishing an "intentional tort," what constitutes an "act by defendant"?
The act required is a "volitional movement" by the defendant
For the purpose of establishing an "intentional tort" what constitutes "intent"?
"Intent" may be "specific" or "general"
"Specific intent" = purpose in acting is to bring about specific consequence
"General intent" = actor knows with "substantial certainty" that the consequence will result.
In order to establish "intent" in establishing an "intentional tort," is it necessary for D to intend the injury?
Example --> If D intentionally pushes P, who falls and breaks arm, D is liable for breaking arm even if they didn't intend to.
With regards to "intentional torts" what is the "Doctrine of Transferred Intent"?
Intent gets transferred from one tort to another if:
1. different tort against same person;
2. same tort against different person;
3. different tort against different person.
But See...limitations on use of transferred intent
What are the limitations on the use of transferred intent?
It can ONLY apply if BOTH torts are on this list:
3. False Imprisonment
4. Trespass to Land
5. Trespass to Chattels
In an "intentional tort" is capacity a good defense against the existence of "intent"?
Everyone is capable of intent. Incapacity is not a good defense.
Example --> young children and persons who are mentally incompetent will be liable for their intentional torts.
For the purpose of establishing an "intentional tort," what constitutes "causation"?
The result must have been legally caused by D's act or something set in motion by him.
Causation = satisfied if D's conduct was a "SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR" in bringing about the injury
What are the 4 intentional torts agains the person?
3. False Imprisonment
4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)
What is the prime facie case for "BATTERY"?
Four elements of prime facie case for BATTERY:
1. Harmful or offensive contact;
2. to P's person;
3. Intent; and
What is "harmful or offensive contact" for the purpose of establishing "Battery"?
"Harmful contact" = causes actual injury, pain, or disfigurement
"offensive contact" = if it would one considered offensive to the reasonable person
What is the effect of "consent" on the element of "harmful or offensive contact"?
Contact = offensive only if it is not consented to.
Consent = implied for ordinary contacts of everyday life (ie..someone bumps you on a crowded bus).
For the purpose of establishing "harmful or offensive contact" for "battery," does "contact" need to be direct?
Contact may be direct or indirect
- striking P (direct)
-planting trap for P to fall into (indirect)
What is considered the "plaintiff's person" for the purpose of establishing "battery" ?
Includes anything connected to the Plaintiff (ie..clothing or purse)
For the purpose of establishing "battery" are damages required?
No. Plaintiff can recover "nominal damages" even if actual damages are not proven.
Plaintiff may recover "punitive damages" for malicious misconduct.
What is the prime facie case for "ASSAULT"?
Four elements to establish prime facie case of assault:
1. Act by D creating "REASONABLE APPREHENSION" in P;
2. of "IMMEDIATE HARMFUL OR OFFENSIVE CONTACT" to P's Person;
3. Intent; and
With regards to establishing the prima facie case for "ASSAULT" what is the issue regarding "APPREHENSION"?
- Apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact must be REASONABLE.
- Courts will not protect P against exaggerated fears of contact.
With regards to the prima facie case for "ASSAULT" does "apprehension" mean "fear" or "intimidation"?
Apprehension should not be confused with FEAR or INTIMIDATION.
For example --> a weakling can cause giant bully to apprehend offensive contact.
With regards to the prima facie case for "ASSAULT", can "APPREHENSION" be established if P has no knowledge of the act?
For apprehension to be show, P must have been aware of the threat (although they need not know of D's identity).
With regards to the prima facie case for "ASSAULT", can "APPREHENSION" be established if D only has the "apparent ability" to commit a battery?
If D has the APPARENT ABILITY to commit a battery, this is enough to create a "REASONABLE APPREHENSION", even if they don't have the actual ability.
With regards to the prime facie case for "ASSAULT", what is the effect of words with regards to creating "reasonable apprehension"?
- Words alone are NOT sufficient to create reasonable apprehension. They must be coupled with conduct.
-HOWEVER --> words MAY negate reasonableness of apprehension. (Example --> someone is shaking their fist, but says they won't hit).
With regards to the prima facie case for "assault", what is the "immediacy requirement"?
P must be apprehensive that she is about to become the victim of an IMMEDIATE battery.
Are actual damages required to establish the prima facie case for "ASSAULT"?
P can recover "nominal damages" even if actual damages cannot be shown.
P can recover "punitive damages" if there is malicious misconduct.
What are the elements of the prima facie case for "False Imprisonment"?
The elements to establish the prima facie case for false imprisonment are:
1. An act or omission by D that "confines or restrains" plaintiff to a "bounded area";
2. Intent; and
What are sufficient methods of "confinement or restraint" in order to establish "False Imprisonment"?
Sufficient methods of "confinement or restraint" are:
1. physical barriers;
2. physical force directed against P, immediate family, or personal property (ie... taking p's purse);
3. direct, indirect or implied threats of force;
4. failure to release P despite legal duty to do so (ie..taxi driver won't release passenger)
5. invalid use of legal authority.
What are insufficient methods of "confinement or restraint" in order to establish "False Imprisonment"?
Insufficient methods of "confinement or restraint are":
1. moral pressure;
2. future threats
To establish "False Imprisonment", what is the relevance of the length of confinement?
It is irrelevant. Any amount of time is sufficient, no matter how short.
With regards to "False Imprisonment", what is the rule regarding P's awareness of the confinement?
P must be either:
1. Aware of the confinement; OR
2. harmed by it.