To establish a prima facie case of intentional tort, what 3 things must a plaintiff prove
1) Act by Defendant - the act required is a volitional movement by defendant 2) Intent - intent may either be specific or general 3) causation - the result must have been legally caused by defendant's act or something set in motion by him.
What act is required to establish a prima facie case of intentional tort?
The act required is a Volitional Movement by defendant
What are the two types of intent for intentional tort, and what is the difference between them
Intent may be either (i) specific (the purpose in acting is to bring about specific consequences) or (ii) general (the actor knows with "substantial certainty" that these consequences will result). The actor does not need to intend the injury that results from bringing about these consequences.
What is the transferred intent rule?
The transferred intent doctrine applies when the defendant intends to commit a tort against one person but instead (i) commits a different tort against that person, (ii) commits the same tort as intended but against a different person, or (iii) commits a different tort against a different person. In such cases, the intent to commit a certain tort against one person is transferred to the tort actually committed or to the person actually injured for purposes of establishing a prima facie case
Transferred intent may be invoked only if both the tort intended and the tort that results are one of the following: (5)
assault; battery; false imprisonment; trespass to land; or trespass to chattels
When is causation satisfied for purposes of establishing a prima facie case of intentional tort?
Causation is satisfied if defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.
What are the four elements of a prima facie case of battery?
harmful or offensive contact; to plaintiff's person; intent; and causation
What is considered 'harmful or offensive contact' for purposes of establishing a prima facie case of battery?
contact is harmful if it causes an actual injury, pain, or disfigurement. Contact is offensive if it would be considered offensive to a reasonable person. Note: contact is considered offensive only if it has not been permitted or consented to. However, consent will be implied for the ordinary contacts of everyday life (e.g., minor bumping on a crowded bus)
For 'offensive contact' under battery, does the contact need to be direct (e.g., striking plaintiff), indirect (e.g., setting a trap for plaintiff to fall into), or may it be either
It may be either direct or indirect
For the 'to plaintiff's person' part of the intentional tort of battery, what does that phrase mean?
Plaintiff's person includes anything connected to the plaintiff (e.g., clothing or purse)
Are damages required for the intentional tort of battery?
No. Plaintiff can recover nominal damages even if actual damages are not proved. Plaintiff may recover punitive damages for malicious conduct.
What are the four elements to establish a prima facie case of assault?
1) an act by defendant creating a 'reasonable apprehension' in plaintiff; 2) of 'immediate harmful or offensive contact' to plaintiff's person; 3) intent; and 4) causation
For the 'apprehension must be reasonable' requirement for the intentional tort of assault, how is fear distinguished?
Apprehension should not be confused with fear or intimidation (e.g., a weakling can cause a bully to apprehend offensive contact for purposes of assault)
Is awareness of the threat needed for the 'apprehension must be reasonable' requirement for the intentional tort of assault?
Yes, the plaintiff must have been aware of the threat from defendant's act, although the plaintiff need not be aware of the defendant's identity.
For the 'reasonable apprehension' requirement for establishing a prima facie case for assault, is the apparent ability to commit a battery enough to cause a reasonable apprehension?
Are words alone sufficient to to create a reasonable apprehension of immediate harm for assault? Can words negate reasonable apprehension?
Words alone are not sufficient. For the defendant to be liable, the words must be coupled with conduct. However, words can negate reasonable apprehension (e.g., the defendant shakes her fist but states that she is not going to strike the plaintiff)
What is the requirement of immediacy within assault?
Plaintiff must be apprehensive that she is about to become the victim of an immediate battery
Are damages required for the intentional tort of assault?
No. Plaintiff can recover nominal damages even if actual damages are not proved. Malicious conduct may permit recovery of punitive damages.
What are the three elements for the prima facie case for the intentional tort of false imprisonment?
(i) An act or omission on the part of defendant that confines or restrains plaintiff to a bounded area; (ii) intent; and (iii) causation
What are 6 acts sufficient to be considered 'confinement' or 'restraint' for the intentional tort of false imprisonment
(i) physical barriers; (ii) physical force directed against plaintiff, immediate family, or personal property (e.g., confiscating plaintiff's purse); (iii) direct threats of force; (iv) indirect or implied threats of force; (v) failure to release plaintiff when under a legal duty to do so (e.g., a taxi driver refusing to let a customer out); and (vi) invalid use of legal authority
Are either (i) moral pressure or (ii) future threats sufficient to fulfill the 'confinement or restraint' requirement for the intentional tort of false imprisonment?
How long must a person be confined to fulfill the requirement for the intentional tort of false imprisonment?
It is irrelevant how short the period of the confinement is
For an area to be 'bounded' for the intentional tort of false imprisonment, what is the scope?
For an area to be "bounded," freedom of movement must be limited in all directions. There must be no reasonable means of escape known to plaintiff
Are damages required for the intentional tort of false imprisonment?
No. Plaintiff can recover nominal damages even if actual damages are not proved. Punitive damages may be recovered if defendant acted maliciously.
What are the four elements for the prima facie case of the intentional tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress?
(i) An act by defendant amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent or recklessness; (iii) causation; and (iv) damages--severe emotional distress
What is the rule for what is 'extreme and outrageous conduct' under the intentional tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress
This is conduct that transcends all bounds of decency. Conduct that is not normally outrageous may become so if: 1) it is continuous in nature; 2) it is directed toward a certain type of plaintiff (children, elderly persons, pregnant women, supersensitive adults if the sensitivities are known to the defendant); or 3) it is committed by a certain type of defendant (common carriers or innkeepers may be liable even for mere "gross insults")
Are damages required for the intentional tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Yes. Actual damages (severe emotional distress), not nominal damages, are required. Proof of physical injury is not required. The more outrageous the conduct, the less proof of damages is required. Note: intentional infliction of emotional distress is the only intentional tort to the person that requires damages
When the defendant intentionally causes physical harm to a third person and the plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress because of it, the plaintiff may recover how?
By showing either the prima facie case elements of emotional distress OR that (i) she was present when the injury occurred, (ii) she is a close relative of the injured person, and (iii) the defendant knew facts (i) and (ii)
What three elements make a prima facie case of the intentional tort of trespass to land?
(i) physical invasion of plaintiff's real property; (ii) intent; and (iii) causation
What are the rules for 'physical invasion of plaintiff's real property' element of intentional trespass to land?
The invasion may be by a person or object (e.g., throwing a baseball onto plaintiff's land is a trespass). If intangible matter (e.g., vibrations or odor) enters, the plaintiff may have a case for nuisance. Real property includes not only the surface, but also airspace and subterranean space for a reasonable distance.