TORT MIDTERM - CASE RULINGS

Garrat v Dailey

5 year old with chair - pulling chair was intentional (Battery)

A battery is defined as the intentional infliction of harmful bodily contact upon another

cause of action defendant intends for actions to occur knowingly

Caudle v Betts

car carburetor to the neck causing nerve damage, there was intent to touch neck, even tho no intent to paralyze (Battery)

A harmful or offensive contact with a person, resulting from an act intended to cause such contact, constitutes a battery. 

Davis v White

defendant meant to shoot someone, instead shooting a neighbor claiming hi tripped on a rock (battery)

The doctrine of transferred intent applies, holding that a person who intends to harm one individual but injures another is liable for the injury caused. 

‘Willful' means deliberate or intentional, and 'malicious' refers to wrongful acts done intentionally without just cause or excuse. 

Leitchman v WLW Jacor Communications Inc

non smoking advocate got smoke blown on him by radio show host, cout claimed this was trivial case (battery)

Vicarious liability (respondait superior): should the company be responsible for the actions of employee acting in the scope of employment 

offensive contact 

A claim for invasion of privacy requires a substantial intrusion into the plaintiff's solitude, seclusion, habitation, or affairs that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. 

Dickens v Puryear:

dad beats up pedophile and tells him to leave state (false imprisonment, admitted to battery)

Since the plaintiff had time to escape from the threat, there was no assault (worth noting that the court was most likely biased in the favor of defendant given circumstances) 

(The one-year statute of limitations // The tort of intentional infliction of mental distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct intended to cause, and which does cause, severe emotional distress.)

Parvi v City of Kingston:

drunk guys are dropped off by cops on golf court (after asking to be let out/ taken to their home) causing them to wander into highway and get hit (false imprisonment)

There needs to be recollection of consent to prove their was or was not a consent (Not being able to recall in this moment does not mean he did not consent at the time, meaning there was no false imprisonment) 

Nickerson v Hodges

Pot of fools gold (IIED)

Defendants can be held liable for inflicting serious mental suffering and humiliation, even if the actions were intended as a practical joke. 

Under Louisiana law, intentional infliction of emotional distress requires proof that the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous, that the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, and that the defendant either intended to cause such distress or knew it was substantially certain to result. 

White v Monsanto Company

curse words toward church going worker leads to panic attack (IIED)

     Intentional tort = more money; Negligence = worker's comp 
     no battery because there was no contact, no assault because there as no imamate threat  

Under Louisiana law, intentional infliction of emotional distress requires proof that the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous, that the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, and that the defendant either intended to cause such distress or knew it was substantially certain to result.  

 Herrin v Southerland

$1 shot over peaceful, private land (Trespass to land)

The shot was an interruption of peaceful possession of property  

Dual Drilling company v Mills equipment Investments Inc  

wrong oil rig, both parties responsible how should they distribute responsibility (Trespass to property)

Issue is that the supreme court had with the trial court was the issue of common law application to the case, supreme court held that they need under civil code that established the intent, needed to establish tort, that is how the correct fault should be placed.  

Liability for conversion is not based on strict liability but requires fault, and damages are limited to the value of the property at the time of conversion.  

Cole vs State of Louisiana

dequincy cop beat up in training (battery/ consent)

There was not affirmative consent  

Consent of a voluntary activity does stop  

Stephen K v Roni L

no birth control lie leads to un wanting father (consent)

Court decides they will reject the tort claim as it was a private and consensual act and such matters are not to be handled by the gov 

Vincent v Lake eerie transp co

Boat docking in private dock in storm (trespass to chattel)

Necessity is a defense to trespass 

If a party deliberately and directly uses another's property to preserve its own during a storm, it is liable for the damage caused to the property used.  

Slayton v Mcdonald

school bus argument, plaintiff follows defendant to his home, in self defense plaintiff shoots defendant in knee (self defesnse)

Self defense requirements were met: defendant retreated deeper into the room causeing threat to plaintiff, defendant was in close, dangerous proximity, and defendant was ready to fight; meaning that plaintiff had right to defend himself 

Landry v Bellanger

bar fight leads to injury leading to life long impairments

Ballenger was acting in self defense  

Negligence =/= intentional tort  

Louisiana Civil Code Article 2323 requires the fault of all persons causing or contributing to an injury to be determined, regardless of the basis of liability. 

Self-defense is a valid defense to a battery if there is an actual or reasonably apparent threat to the defendant's safety, and the force used is not excessive. 

New law states that if you are more than 50% responsible you recover 0% of damages but if you are less than 50% responsible you can recover half+ of damages 

Patterson v Kuntz

peeping tom gets shot because the father feared for his and womenfolk safety (self defense)

A defendant using force under a reasonable apprehension of danger is not civilly liable to someone whom they reasonably believe to be an assailant, even if the belief is mistaken.  

The right to use force to protect one's home and family is recognized, but it must be based on genuine and reasonable fear of serious harm. 

Katto v Briney

defendant made a slingshot gun to protect abandoned house that shot plaintiff in the knee (self defense)

Use of springing to protect property, which is abandoned, is not justified 

Harral v Daniels

teacher leaves bruises on kid with paddle which leads him to have trauma, teacher had privilege (privilege/battery)

Teacher did have the privilege of corporal punishment, this privilege shall be construed narrowly by the court 

Punishment, given other instances without bruising, was outside the scope of the privilege of corporal punishment given to teacher 

Factors to determine reasonableness include the student's age and physical condition, the seriousness of the misconduct, the nature and severity of the punishment, the student's past behavior, and the availability of less severe but equally effective disciplinary measures. 

Deroun V Miller 

winn dixie shrimp stealer detained with no questioning (shopekeepers privlage (false imprisonment))

Shopkeepers privilege only covers their actions if the appropriately fall within the scope of the statute  

Thomas v Schewgamann Giant Supermarket Inc

woman detained bc they thought she stole nail glue, there was no nail glue in package (shopekeepers privlage (false imprisonment))

While the law maintains that the store has the right to detain for theft there was no theft that occurred in this matter, not a valid use of the shopkeeper statute 

Reasonable cause requires articulable knowledge of particular facts sufficient to suspect criminal activity. False imprisonment claims require proof of one or more of the following: unreasonable force, lack of reasonable cause, or detention exceeding 60 minutes without justification.  

Compuserve Inc. v. Cyber Promotions

spam mail (tresspass to chattle)

A trespass to chattels occurs when one intentionally uses or intermeddles with the chattel in possession of another, causing harm to the chattel or to a legally protected interest of the possessor.