Torts Flashcards
(30 cards)
To establish a prima facie case of intentional tort liability, the plaintiff must prove…?
(i) ACT by Defendant;
- “act” refers to a volitional movement (one dictated by the mind)
(ii) INTENT
- an actor “intends” the consequences of his conduct if his purpose in acting is to bring about these consequences (“specific intent”) or if he knows with substantial certainty that these consequences will result (“general intent”)
(iii) CAUSATION
- the causation requirement will be satisfied where the conduct of defendant is a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.
- will not be at issue in intentional torts cases
What is the “transferred intent doctrine”?
The transferred intent doctrine applies where the defendant intends to commit a tort against one person, but instead:
(a) commits a different tort against that person
(b) commits the same tort as intended but against a different person, or
(c) commits a different tort against a different person.
In such cases, the intent to commit a tort against one person is transferred to the other tort or to the injured person for purposes of establishing a prima facie case.
Transferred intent may be invoked only where the tort intended and the tort that results are both within the following list: assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land and trespass to chattels.
Intentional Torts to the Person: What elements need to be proved to establish a prima facie case for BATTERY?
To establish a prima facie case for battery, the following elements must be proved:
(1) An ACT by D which brings about HARMFUL OR OFFENSIVE contact to P’s person.
(2) INTENT on the part of D to bring about harmful or offensive to P’s person.
(3) CAUSATION
What is the meaning of “Plaintiff’s Person”, for purposes of battery?
For purposes of a battery, anything connected to the plaintiff’s person is viewed as part of the plaintiff’s person.
Examples: purse, article of clothing, a walking stick.
Intentional Torts to the Person: What elements need to be proved to establish a prima facie case for ASSAULT?
(1) An act by D creating a REASONABLE APPREHENSION in P of IMMEDIATE HARM or OFFENSIVE CONTACT to P’s person
- includes a conditional threat (words and act combine to form a threat)
- must be of immediate harmful or offensive contact; threats of future contact are insufficient
(2) INTENT
(3) CAUSATION
Intentional Torts to the Person: What elements need to be proved to establish a prima facie case for FALSE IMPRISONMENT?
(1) An act/omission by D that CONFINES or RESTRAINS the P to a BOUNDED area
- Includes: physical barriers, physical force, direct threats of force, indirect threats of force
- Also includes: failure to provide means of escape (where D has a duty to take steps to release P), invalid use of legal authority (e.g., false arrests).
- Insufficient acts of restraint: (i) moral pressure and (ii) future threats.
(2) INTENT
(3) CAUSATION
Is awareness of imprisonment/confinement a necessary element for FALSE IMPRISONMENT?
Generally, yes.
However, an exception to this requirement is where the person confined is actually injured by the confinement.
Intentional Torts to the Person: What elements need to be proved to establish a prima facie case for INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS?
(1) An ACT by D amounting to EXTREME and OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT
– Conduct needs to “transcend all bounds of decency” tolerated by society.
– No physical injury or threat thereof.
(2) INTENT on the part of D to cause P to suffer severe emotional distress, or RECKLESSNESS as to the effect of D’s conduct
– Includes reckless conduct.
(3) CAUSATION
– In bystander cases, P needs to show that (a) P was present at the time, (b) the distress resulted in bodily harm, or P was a close relative of the third party; and (c) the D knew of these facts.
– Nb. re above, the P does not need to establish these requirements if she shows that D had a design or purpose to cause severe distress to P.
(4) DAMAGES (the ONLY intentional tort that requires damages)
– Need to establish severe emotional distress.
Intentional Torts to Property: What elements need to be proved to establish a prima facie case for TRESPASS TO LAND?
(1) An act of PHYSICAL INVASION of P’s real property by D;
(2) INTENT to enter onto the land;
- Intent to trespass is not required; intent to enter onto the land is sufficient, i.e., mistake is no defence.
(3) CAUSATION
Who may bring an action for trespass?
An action for trespass may be maintained by anyone in actual or constructive possession of the land (i.e., does not have to have title).
Intentional Torts to Property: What elements need to be proved to establish a prima facie case for TRESPASS TO CHATTELS?
(1) An ACT by D interfering with P’s right of possession in the chattel;
(2) INTENT to perform the act bringing about the interference with P’s right of possession;
- Mistaken belief that D owns the chattels is NO DEFENCE to an action for trespass to chattels.
(3) CAUSATION; and
(4) DAMAGES
- Actual damages required, i.e., in the absence of any actual damages, an action will not lie.
- Nominal damages will not be awarded.
Cf. conversion (grants relief for interferences with a chattel so serious as to warrant requiring the D to pay its full value in damages)
Who may bring a trespass to chattels action?
Anyone with possession or the immediate right to possession may maintain an action for trespass to chattels.
Intentional Torts to Property: What elements need to be proved to establish a prima facie case for CONVERSION?
(1) An act by D INTERFERING with P’s right of possession in the chattel;
(2) INTENT to perform the act that interferes with P’s right of posession
- Does not matter that the conduct is wholly innocent – therefore, a bona fide purchaser may be liable but cf. bailees without notice.
- Accidentally causing damage to or loss to another’s chattels does not amount to conversion (may be liable for negligence).
(3) CAUSATION
(4) DAMAGES
- Interference serious enough to warrant D to pay the FULL VALUE of the chattel.
Examples: one can act in such a way as to seriously invade another’s chattel interest in a variety of ways, including:
(a) wrongful acquisition, e.g., theft, embezzlement
(b) wrongful transfer, e.g., selling, misdelivering, pledging
(c) wrongful. detention, e.g., refusing to return to owner
(d) substantially changing
(e) severely damaging or destroying
(f) misusing the chattel
Who may bring an action for conversion?
Anyone with possession or the immediate right to possession may maintain an action for conversion.
The two main remedies for conversion are:
(1) Damages
- P is entitled to damages for the fair market value of the chattel (i.e., forced sale of the chattel to D)
- Computed as of the time and place of conversion
(2) Replevin
- P has chattel returned (title remains with P)
List some defences to intentional torts.
(1) Consent (Express or Implied)
- Implied consent includes: apparent consent and consent implied by law.
- Not everyone can consent to tortious conduct: Incompetents, drunken persons, and very young persons cannot.
(2) Self-Defence
(3) Defence of Others
(4) Defence of Property
(5) Reentry onto Land
- Applies to a D who had been toriously dispossessed from her land. However, most states do not resort to “self-help”.
(6) Recapture of Chattel
- Force may be used to recapture chatell only when in “hot pursuit” of one who has obtained possession wrongfully (e.g., by theft).
(7) Privilege of Arrest
- The privilege of arrest carries with it the privilege to enter another’s land for the purpose of effecting the arrest.
(8) Necessity
- Applies only to property torts.
- To avoid threatened injury from a natural or other force where the threatened injury is substantially more serious than the invasion.
- Acts of public necessity (to avert public disaster), the defence is absolute.
- Acts of private necessity, the defence is qualified, i.e., the actor must pay for any injury he causes.
(9) Discipline
- A parent or teacher may use reasonable force in disciplining children. However, this common rule has been mostly displaced by statutes forbidding corporal punishment.
What are the elements of NEGLIGENCE?
(1) A DUTY on the part of D to conform to a specific standard of conduct for the protection of P against an unreasonable risk of injury.
(2) BREACH of that DUTY
(3) Breach of duty by D was the ACTUAL AND PROXIMATE CAUSE of P’s injury (“causation”)
(4) DAMAGE to the P’s person or property.
To whom is a duty of care owed?
A DoC is owed to FORESEEABLE PLAINTIFFS, which are the class of persons who were foreseeably endangered by the D’s negligent conduct.
People not within the “zone of danger” of D’s conduct cannot recover.
Who has an action for “wrongful birth” or “wrongful pregnancy”?
A child’s parents (not the child), either for failure to diagnose a defect, or for failure to properly perform a contraceptive procedure.
Negligence: what is the applicable standard of care?
D’s conduct is measured against a REASONABLY PRUDENT PERSON under the SAME OR SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES.
If D is a professional/has a special skill, D’s standard of conduct is that she is required to possess and exercise the knowledge/skill of a member of the profession/occupation in good standing.
What duties are owed by a possessor to those OFF PREMISES?
Owed:
- Unreasonably dangerous artificial conditions or
- Structures abutting adjacent land
Not owed:
- Natural conditions of the land (cf. decaying trees)
What duties are owed by a possessor to those ON PREMISES?
Depends on the legal status of the plaintiff with regard to the property (e.g., trespasser, licensee or invitee).
TRESPASSERS
- No duty owed to undiscovered trespassers.
- Duty to warn of, or make safe, artificial conditions that involve a risk of death or serious bodily harm that the trespasser is unlikely to discover.
LICENSEE
- Enters onto land for her own purpose or business.
- Duty to warn of, or make safe, dangerous conditions (artificial or natural) known to the owner that create an unreasonable risk of harm to the licensee, and that the licensee is unlikely to discover.
- Social guests are licensees.
INVITEE
- Enters onto land for a purpose connected with the business, or other interest of the landowner/occupier OR enters as members of the public for a purpose for which the land is open to the public.
- Same duty owed to licensees PLUS a duty to make reasonable inspections to discover nonobvious dangerous conditions and, thereafter, make them safe (e.g., by a warning).
Is a landowner liable if he permits the public to use his land for recreational purposes without charging a fee?
No, the landowner is not liable for injuries UNLESS he willfully or maliciously failed to guard against or warn of a dangerous condition or activity.
Duty of Care: Will a statutory standard of care replace a common law duty of care?
Yes, a clearly state specific duty imposed by a statute providing for criminal penalties may replace the more general common law duty of care if (a) P is within the protected class and (b) the statute was designed to prevent the type of harm suffered by P.
