Torts Rules and Cases Flashcards
Garratt v Daily
Whether a five year old child can be held liable for battery when he intentionally caused harm?
A minor may be held liable for the tort of battery if he or she acted intentionally, with knowledge to a substantial certainty that his or her actions would cause a harmful or offensive contact to another person.
Wagner v State
Whether there is more than intent to make contact necessary when meeting the intent element in a battery claim?
Intent to make contact is all that is necessary to meet the intent element in a battery claim.
Ranson v Kitner
Can a party be liable in an action for damages for actions they take in good faith based on their own mistaken understanding of the circumstances?
Whether the appellee is liable for damages when the damages resulted from a mistake of the circumstances?
Even if acting in good faith, a party may nevertheless be held liable for damages resulting from her mistake.
McGuire v Almy
Whether an insane person is liable for torts when they are not capable of controlling their behavior?
f a legally insane person causes intentional damage to the person or property of another, he or she is liable for that damage in the same circumstances in which a sane person would be liable.
Talmage v Smith
Whether a person is liable to another individual for using unreasonable force and injuring that person when he did not specifically intend to use such force against that person.
A party is liable for damages to another if he intends to use unreasonable force to inflict harm upon another and accidentally harms another party whom he did not intend to use force against.
Cole v Turner
Whether a party is liable for battery when the slightest use of violence is used.
Even the slightest touching of another out of anger constitutes a battery.
Wallace v Rosen
Whether a person is liable for an offensive touching when they are in a crowded area.
In order for a touching to be sufficiently offensive so as to constitute a battery it must be offensive to an ordinary person not unduly sensitive as to personal dignity based on the time, place and circumstances under which the touching is done.
Fisher v Carrousel Motor Hotel
Whether a party has committed a battery when they touch an object connected to a person in an offensive manner.
A party is liable for damages for humiliation for an intentional offensive touching of anything connected with another individual and actual physical contact with the actual body of another is not required.
I de S et ux v. W de S
Whether physical harm is required for liability when there is an assualt.
No physical harm is required to find liability for assault.
Western Union Telegraph v Hill
Whether a victim’s well-founded fear of battery, combined with the apparent ability of the defendant to touch the victim constitute a battery when no touch occurs.
Whether an employer is liable for it’s employee’s actions when the employee isn’t acting on behalf of the employer’s business interests.
To constitute an actionable assault, there must be an intentional, unlawful offer to touch another person in a rude or angry manner under circumstances that would create a well-founded fear of imminent battery, couple with apparent present ability of the offending party to effectuate the attempt
An employer will not be liable for an employee’s actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior if the employee has stepped aside from the employer’s business to pursue an entirely personal matter
Big Town Nursing Home v Newman
Whether a party is liable for damages for false imprisonment for the direct restraint of another’s physical liberty when there is no legal justification.
False imprisonment is the direct restraint of the physical liberty of another without legal justification.
Parvi v City of Kingston
Whether a victim can recover damages for false imprisonment when he has no conscious recollection of his confinement.
A victim cannot recover damages for false imprisonment unless the victim had a conscious knowledge of the unlawful confinement at the time the confinement took place.
Hardy v LaBelle’s
Whether sufficient evidence the plaintiff was held against their will is needed to support the verdict and judgement when there are accusations of false imprisonment.
n order to hold a party liable for false imprisonment, a party must prove he or she was unlawfully restrained against his will.
Enright v Groves
Whether a party can be liable for false imprisonment when taking another individual into custody without legal authority.
False imprisonment occurs when an individual is taken into custody by another who claims but does not have proper legal authority.
Whittaker v Sandford (Boats and Hos)
Whether a party may recover for false imprisonment when they are restrained by another without the use of physical force.
To be liable for false imprisonment, a party must demonstrate that they have been subject to some manner of restraint, but not necessarily through the use of actual physical force by another.
State Rubbish Collectors v Siliznoff
Whether a party is liable for intentionally causing another party mental distress when seriously threatening his physical well being, regardless of whether the threats technically constitute an assault.
A party can be liable for intentionally causing another party mental distress by seriously threatening his physical well-being, regardless of whether the threats technically constituted an assault under the circumstances.
Slocum v Food Fair Stores
Whether a party is liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress when using simple insults not intended to have real meaning or serious effect that subsequently causes another emotional distress.
A party is not liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress for simple insults not intended to have real meaning or serious effect that subsequently causes another emotional distress.
Harris v Jones
Whether a party may recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress when a party does not suffer a severely disabling emotional response to another’s conduct.
In order for a party to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress a party must suffer a severely disabling emotional response to another’s conduct.
Taylor v Vallelunga
Whether an individual be held liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress when the individual did not act with the purpose to cause severe emotional distress or know with a substantial certainty that severe emotional distress would be produced from their conduct.
A party is liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress when the act is done for the purpose of causing emotional distress or with knowledge to a substantial certainty that severe emotional distress will be produced by their conduct.
Dougherty v Stepp
Whether an unauthorized entry onto the land of another that causes no actual damage to the land may give rise to an action for trespass.
Unlawful, entry onto the land of another constitutes a trespass regardless of whether actual damage is caused to the land.
Herrin v Sutherland
May a party be held liable to another for trespass for interfering with the enjoyment of another’s land without touching the actual surface of another’s land?
A party is liable for trespass for interfering with the quiet, undisturbed, peaceful enjoyment of another’s land even without touching the actual surface of another’s land.
Rogers v Board of Road Com’rs
Can a party bring a cause of action for a continuing trespass for one’s failure to remove a structure, chattel or thing placed on another’s land pursuant to a license or privilege after the expiration of such license or privilege?
A continuing trespass is committed by the continued presence on the land of another of a structure, chattel or other thing, which the actor has placed there pursuant to a license or other privilege and has failed to remove after such license or privilege has been terminated.
Glidden v Szybiak
Whether a party committed trespass to chattel when the chattel is not impaired as to its condition, quality or value?
An individual is liable for trespass to chattel when they, without consent or privilege, use or otherwise intentionally intermeddle with chattel that is in the possession of another, and the chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality, or value.
Compuserve v Cyber
Promotions
May a party be held liable for trespass to chattel for dispossessing another’s chattel by interfering or intermeddling with another’s chattel such that either the value of such chattel is impaired or harm is caused to the possessor of the chattel?
One is subject to liability for trespass to chattel if, (1) he dispossesses another of the chattel, (2) the value of the chattel is impaired, (3) the possessor is deprived of the use of the chattel, or (4) harm is caused to the possessor of the chattel.
