TORTS DECKS

Question 1

What is a tort?

Answer 1

A private or civil wrong or injury, other than breach of contract, for which the court will provide a remedy in the form of an action for damages.

Question 2

What are the 3 main categories of torts?

Answer 2

Intentional Torts, Strict Liability, and Negligence

Question 3

What are the elements of a Battery?

Answer 3

1) Volitional Act; 2) Intent; 3) Causation; 4) Bodily Contact; 5) Contact is Harmful or Offensive

Question 4

What constitutes an offensive contact?

Answer 4

A bodily contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity

Question 5

Garratt v. Dailey

Answer 5

D moved chair upon which P was about to sit.

Question 6

What are two ways to show intent?

Answer 6

Knowledge - consequense substantially certain
Purpose - consequence desired
- Both are subjective

Question 7

D taken with violent seizures during which his uncontrollably flailing body bumped chair away?

Answer 7

No battery - not a volitional act.

Question 8

D didn’t know P was about to sit?

Answer 8

No battery - although D purposely moved the chair, there is no intent to touch.

Question 9

Wagner v. State

Answer 9

Schizophrenic ward of state attacked P.
- Battery when D intends neither harm nor offense? YES
- Law will not err on the side of actors who deliberately touch

Question 10

Polmatier v. Ross

Answer 10

Insane D shot and killed P
- Insanity no defense
- D knew he was touching, albeit for irrational reasons

Question 11

D thought gun were magic and bullet would pass through P without touching?

Answer 11

No intent to touch.

Question 12

Ranson v. Kitner

Answer 12

D shot P’s dog thinking it was a wolf
- Mistake is irrelevant
- Volitional act of pulling the trigger intending to shoot
- Exception to Mistake: Mistakes induced by P absolve D

Question 13

Alteiri v. Colasso

Answer 13

D struck P in eye with stone
- Was defendant trying to hit plaintiff? NO
- Did defendant know plaintiff substantially certain to be hit? NO
- Did defendant want to hit anyone? NO

Question 14

In Battery, Harm is

Answer 14

Invasion of P’s bodily integrity, not necessarily any physical injury resulting from the invasion
- Does not require actual physical harm
- Can be harmful contact or offensive contact

Question 15

More info about Intent

Answer 15

Intent can be shown through subjective purpose or knowledge
Intent required is the intent to invade the particular protected interest; not the intent to harm or do something illegal
Incapacity can prevent defendant from forming requisite intent but is not an element that has to be proven
Motive is irrelevant
Mistakes are generally irrelevant to intent
Intent can transfer between victims and intentional torts

Question 16

Cohen v. Smith

Answer 16

Smith touched Cohen’s naked body contrary to expressed wishes
- Objectively offensive touch because they went against what was agreed upon between their verbal contract

Question 17

Assault

Answer 17

Volitional Act
Intent
Causation
Apprehension of imminent battery (not fear but expectation)

Question 18

More about assault

Answer 18

Not physical harm (can be offensive contact)
P must be aware
Threatened contact must be imminent
Must apprehension be reasonable? Courts are split)
- Some authorities say reasonable apprehension required element; others require only apprehension

Question 19

Conditional Threats

Answer 19

If the actor intentionally puts another in apprehension of an imminent and harmful or offensive contact, he is subject to liability for an assault although he gives to the other the option to escape the contact by obedience to a command given by the actor, unless the command is one which the actor is privileged to enforce by the infliction of the threatened contact or by a threat to inflict it.

Question 20

Threats to Words

Answer 20

Words do not make the actor liable for assault unless together with the acts or circumstances they put the other in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with his person.

Question 21

Vetter v. Morgan

Answer 21

P and D at stop light late at night; D screamed threats and obscenities, made obscene gestures and spat on van door
- Verbal threat + bizarre conduct = apprehension of contact

Question 22

Trogden v. Terry

Answer 22

P had written letter about D; D holding cane at the ready, made P sign retraction
- D had no legal right to demand retraction (no privilege)

Question 23

False Imprisonment (FI)

Answer 23

Volitional Act
Intent to confine
Causation
Confinement
Harm (usually consciousness of confinement)

Question 24

What constitutes confinement?

Answer 24

Boundaries fixed by the actor must be complete.
Confinement is complete although there is a reasonable means of escape, unless the other knows of it.
No false imprisonment by intentionally preventing another from going in a particular direction in which he has a right or privilege to go.

Question 25

Confinement by physical force

Answer 25

Confinement may be overpowering physical force or by submission to physical force.

Question 26

Confinement by threats of physical force

Answer 26

Confinement may be by submission to a threat to apply physical force to the other's person immediately upon the other's going or attempting to go beyond the area the actor intends to confine him.

Question 27

Webber v. Froedtert Memorial

Answer 27

Hospital prohibited P from visiting wife (patient) No FI because P was still allowed to go anywhere else. Element missing is the Confinement within a bounded area

Question 28

Dupler v. Subert

Answer 28

P was in a room with two person who where trying to have her resign - Facts to support FI: shouting, expressed desire to leave, command to stay, anger, fear, outnumbered

Question 29

Herbts v. Wuennenberg

Answer 29

Ps checking names on mailboxes and D stood in doorway to discourage them from leaving until police arrived - No evidence of coercion; submission to implied threat of force

Question 30

Confinement by force or threat of force summary

Answer 30

1) Physical barriers, e.g., locking in room 2) Force, e.g., holding 3) Threatening immediate force upon: P or P's property or 3rd party family members/companions 4) Improper color of legal authority, e.g., false arrest 5) Omission to act when duty exists IT IS NOT -- economic retaliation or moral suasion or social pressure

Question 31

Coblyn v. Kennedy's Inc.

Answer 31

Heart attack when P questioned about shoplifting - Coercion through implied threat of force (grasped arm, loomed up, another employee, "you better come", show of force)

Question 32

Shopkeeper's Privilege

Answer 32

Most states by statute privilege merchants to reasonably detain suspected shoplifters Reasonable detention: length, no violence, no screaming Probable cause - objective standard

Question 33

Teel v. May Dept. Stores

Answer 33

P detained until confession after sister-in-law posed as credit customer's wife Reasonable - Probable cause that P participated in purchases and falsely ID'ed herself Unreasonable - length of detention - detained after goods recovered; forced to remain until confession

Question 34

Maniaci v. Marquette

Answer 34

Ds prevented P from leaving school by committing her to mental hospital - No FI, arrest was legal - Malicious Prosecution; guards against frivolous litigaton/charges - Abuse of process; using legal process for unintended purposes (misuse of civil proceedings)

Question 35

Peterson v. Sorlein

Answer 35

Adult P kidnapped for deprogamming returned to the cult and sued - No FI due to Parental Privilege - parents of minors are privileged to use reasonable force/confinement for child's benefit.

Question 36

Scott v. Ross

Answer 36

P is 18; belongs to United Pentecostal Church International - No Parental Privilege because P was of age

Question 37

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

Answer 37

Intent or Recklessness - with regard to causing the emotional distress Extreme - very unusual Outrageous - very bad Conduct Causation Severe emotional distress - beyond what we expect people to ordinarily have to endure

Question 38

Figueiredo-Torres v. Nickel

Answer 38

Marriage counselor's affair with patient Intent? Maybe not, but reasonable person would assume so. Recklessness? Deliberate disregard of a high degree of probability. - Special Relationship: Power (superior-subordinate), Fiduciary (physician-patient)