Intentional Torts

Intentional Tort

An intentional tort is a volitional act committed by a person who acts with the purpose or desire to cause a harm (specific intent) or who acts knowing with substantial certainty (general intent) to cause a harm and the act results in a harm.

Battery

To prove a cause of action for assault, a P must prove that the D committed a volitional act with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact.

General Intent

Has knowledge with substantial certainty a harm will result; the intent to perform an act even though the actor does not desire the consequences that result but has knowledge with substantial certainty that the act will bring about harm.

Specific Intent

Desired to cause a harm; intent to accomplish an act that would result in harm (purposeful; desires).

Garratt v. Dailey

Takeaway: when a minor has committed a tort with force they are liable to be proceeded against as any other person would be; exception: there is an age below which a minor will not be held liable because the child is too young to form intent.

Waters v. Blackshear

Takeaway: Intentional conduct cannot be negligent conduct and vice versa.

White v. Muniz

Takeaway: Single Intent: the tortfeasor intended the contact, and the result was harmful or offensive; Dual Intent: the tortfeasor intended the contact and intended that the contact be harmful or offensive.

Objective Standard

In deciding whether the contact was offensive, the standard is based upon the ordinary, reasonable person; the question is 'Would the ordinary person find the conduct offensive NOT did this particular P find it offensive?'

Fisher v. Carousel Motel Hotel, Inc.

Takeaway: actual physical contact is not necessary to be a battery, as long as there is contact with clothing or an object intimately associated with the body.

Richardson v. Henley

Takeaway: unlawful touching need not be direct but may be indirect as by the contact of a body with a material substance.

Eichenwald v. Rivello

Takeaway: physical contact need not be with the physical body of the plaintiff and need not be direct physical contact; the contact can be of an amorphous nature (i.e., with a strobe light).

Consent

Without consent or lacking privilege.

Scope of Liability

A battery may occur through a defendant's direct or indirect contact with the plaintiff; innocent conduct that accidentally or inadvertently results in a harmful or offensive contact with another will not give rise to liability, but one will be liable for such contact if it comes about as a result of the actor's volitional conduct where there is an intent to invade the other person's legally protected interests.

Assault

a P must prove that the D acted volitionally with intent to cause imminent apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact, and the imminent apprehension actually occurs. D acts without consent or privilege.

Cullison v. Medley

Takeaway: Test for conditional language causing assault; whether given the totality of the circumstances including any words spoken by the D might satisfy the elements of the tort.

Reasonable Apprehension

The actual (subjective) apprehension of the impending battery by the victim and the conclusion that this apprehension was reasonable (objective).

Actual Apprehension

There must be actual (subjective) apprehension of the impending battery by the victim, and the conclusion that this apprehension was reasonable (objective).

Known Particular Sensitivity

If the defendant knows of victim's sensitivity and exploits it knowing they will suffer.

Test for Conditional Language Causing Assault

Whether given the totality of the circumstances including any words spoken by the D might satisfy the elements of the tort.

Apparent Ability

The D's act must amount to an offer to use force and there must be an apparent ability and opportunity to carry out the threat imminently.

Assault Liability

Words alone are not enough to make an actor liable for assault, UNLESS together with other acts or circumstances they put the other in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

Imminent Apprehension

Imminent apprehension resulted without consent or lacking privilege.

Assault Recovery

Assault allows recovery even if there was no physical harm (assault protects from 'touching of the mind').

Apparent vs Actual Ability

Only apparent ability is required not actual ability.

Fear vs Imminent Apprehension

Fear does not equal imminent apprehension; imminent apprehension does not require fear.

Awareness in Assault

Awareness is necessary for establishing assault.

Transferred Intent

The doctrine of transferred intent allows a plaintiff to establish the element of intent in cases in which the defendant intended to commit an intentional tort against one person but ended up committing a different intentional tort against the same person, the same intentional tort against a different person, or a different intentional tort against a different person.

Traditional Transferred Intent

If defendant intends any of these five torts but their act(s) instead or in addition result in any of the other five torts, the defendant is liable, even though they did not intend the other tort.

Modern Transferred Intent

Transferred intent between battery and assault primarily.

Hall v. MacBryde

When an intent to cause harm or offensive contact to one person results in harm to another person instead of the intended target, the law transfers the intent to the person harmed.

Policy Implications of Transferred Intent

Deterrence of intentionally tortious acts; people that act in an antisocial manner should be answerable for the consequences of their actions, even if someone other than the intended victim suffered the injury.

False Imprisonment

To prove a cause of action for false imprisonment, a P must show that the D acted volitionally with intent to detain (or confine) another person.

William Whirl v. C.V. (Buster) Kern

False imprisonment is committed when a person intentionally deprives another of liberty without the other's consent and without adequate legal justification.

Duty to Prisoner

The duty of the jailer to the prisoner is not breached until the expiration of a reasonable time for the proper ascertainment of the authority upon which the prisoner is detained.

Permissible Detention

What may start off as a permissible detention can become false imprisonment.

Confinement Awareness

A person is either aware of the confinement OR harmed by the confinement.

Consent and Privilege

False imprisonment occurs without consent and lacking privilege.

Close Confinement Requirement

False imprisonment requires close confinement of the plaintiff.

Reasonable Means of Escape

No false imprisonment if a reasonable means of escape exists.

Unawareness of Exit

Plaintiff must be unaware of an available exit for confinement to exist.

Offensive Escape

Even if a safe escape exists, the plaintiff is not required to take it if doing so would be offensive to a reasonable sense of decency or personal dignity.

Confinement Structure

Confinement does not require a stationary structure.

Means of Confinement

Confinement can occur by actual or apparent physical barriers, being overpowered through physical force, submitting to a threat of physical force, submitting to duress not involving threats of physical force, or being taken into custody under an asserted claim of legal authority.

Shopkeeper's Privilege

A privilege permitting a shopkeeper to detain a person to investigate the ownership of property.

Reasonable Belief

Shopkeeper must reasonably believe that the person has stolen or is attempting to steal store merchandise.

Reasonable Manner

Detention must take place in a reasonable manner.

Reasonable Time

Detention must occur for a reasonable period of time.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

To prove a cause of action for IIED, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's intentional or reckless conduct was aimed at causing severe emotional distress.

Extreme and Outrageous Conduct

Behavior which is beyond all possible bounds of decency and regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.

Totality of Circumstances

When evaluating whether extreme and outrageous conduct occurred, one must look at the totality of the circumstances.

Position of Power

Conduct that is otherwise permissible may be deemed extreme and outrageous if the defendant is in a position of power or has actual or apparent authority over the interests of others.

Severe Emotional Distress

Severe emotional distress takes into account the depth and duration of the distress.

Proof of Serious Mental Injury

Proof of a serious mental injury is generally not required to maintain a claim for IIED.

Majority View on Expert Proof

Expert proof is generally not necessary to establish the existence of a serious mental injury.

Minority View on Expert Proof

Expert medical or scientific proof of serious mental injury is required to maintain a claim for IIED.

Reduction of Tort

The minority view prevents reduction of a tort to a single element of outrageousness.

IIED

Does not provide legal redress for every slight insult or indignity that one endures.

Free Speech Clause

Can serve as a defense in tort suits.

Liability for IIED

One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress is subject to liability for the emotional distress, and for the bodily harm that results from the emotional distress.

Intent or Recklessness in IIED

P must prove that D either intended to cause severe emotional distress or acted with reckless disregard as to whether the victim would suffer severe emotional distress.

Particular Characteristics of P

In circumstances where the D's conduct is outrageous only because of P's particular characteristics, the D must be aware or it must be apparent that P has such characteristics.

Liability Irrespective of Harm

One is liable to another irrespective of whether harm was caused.

Trespass to Land

Can be committed by simply entering the land, placing something on the land, causing a 3rd party to go on the land, or remaining on property after expiration of right of entry.

Trespass Does Not Need to Cause Harm

Trespass does not need to cause harm to be actionable.

Intentional Trespasser Damages

Damages caused by an intentional trespasser need not be foreseeable to be compensable.

Trespass to Chattel

To prove a cause of action for Trespass to Chattel, a P must show that the D acted volitionally and with the intent to interfere with the P's chattel.

Snyder v. Phelps

Case illustrating that the Free Speech Clause can serve as a defense in tort suits.

Baker v. Shymkiv

Case illustrating that damages caused by an intentional trespasser need not be foreseeable to be compensable.

Physical Harm Liability

A person who trespasses is liable for any harm caused by their actions, activities, or conditions they create while on the property.

Trespass to Land Elements

To prove trespass to land, one must show entry onto the property of another without consent or lacking privilege.

Emotional Distress to Third Parties

Where conduct is directed at a third person, the actor is subject to liability if he intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress.

Close Relative Requirement

Some courts require that the 3rd party is a close relative of the primary victim, present at the time, and that D knows the close relative is present.

Bodily Harm Resulting from Distress

Liability exists if such distress results in bodily harm to a person present at the time.

Volitional Action Requirement

To prove a cause of action, a P must show that the D acted volitionally.

Entering Another's Property

To commit trespass, one must enter the property of another without consent or lacking privilege.

Trespass to Chattels (T/C)

May be committed by intentionally dispossessing another of the chattel, or using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another.

Interference

Interfere with the Plaintiff's right of possession in the chattel.

Legal Cause

The Defendant was the legal cause or set in motion that which caused the interference.

Damages

Damages resulted without consent and lacking privilege.

General Rule of Damages

Nominal damages will not be awarded for trespass to chattels; in the absence of damages, a cause of action will not be successful.

Dispossession

If the trespass to chattel amounts to a dispossession, the loss of possession itself is deemed to be an actual harm.

Liability for Trespass to Chattels

A person who commits T/C is subject to liability if, but only if: dispossess the other of the chattel, chattel is impaired as to its condition quality or value, possessor is deprived of the use of the chattel for a substantial time, bodily harm is caused to the possessor, or harm is caused to some person or thing in which the possessor has a legally protected interest.

Ways of Dispossession

Dispossession may be committed by intentionally taking a chattel from possession of another without consent (take), obtaining possession by fraud or duress (trick), blocking possessor's access to a chattel (block), destroying a chattel while it is in another's possession (break), taking a chattel into the custody of the law (badge).

Conversion

To prove a cause of action for conversion, a Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant acts volitionally with intent to exercise dominion and control.

Pearson v. Dodd

Takeaway: Conversion is the intentional exercise of control or dominion over a chattel that interferes with another's right to control it with sufficient severity that the party exercising such control may fairly be required to pay for its full value.

Serious Interference

Conversion happens when someone intentionally takes control over another person's property in such a serious way that they have to pay the full value of it.

Market Value Requirement

Requiring the Defendant to pay full market value if the Defendant is unable to or the Plaintiff refuses return of the chattel.

Acts of Conversion

Conversion may be committed by intentionally dispossessing another of a chattel, destroying or altering a chattel, using the chattel in a way that seriously interferes with the owner's rights, receiving it, disposing of it, misdelivery, or refusing to surrender.

What Can Be Converted

Tangible personal property; intangible property only if it has been tied to a physical document that represents it, such as a promissory note or a bill of lading.

Remedies for Conversion

Plaintiff is entitled to damages for the fair market value (FMV) of the chattel, value is generally computed as of time and place of the conversion.

Title Upon Judgment

Defendant is given title upon satisfaction of the judgment (essentially a forced sale of the chattel).

Privileges or Justifications

If a Plaintiff does not give consent to the invasion of a legally protected interest, the Defendant has no justification for the behavior and is liable for the tortious conduct.

Existence of a Privilege

If Plaintiff does not give consent, but the Defendant has demonstrated the existence of a privilege, then the Defendant is not liable for the tortious assault.

P's consent

Negates the wrongful element of the D's act and prevents the existence of a tort.

Withdrawal of consent

Consent may still be found where someone withdraws from participation in an activity and fails to provide notice.

Implied consent

Consent inferred from conduct, custom, or other circumstances.

Consent by conduct

Consent that is inferred from a person's actions, where social context is important.

Custom

Consent may be implied from customary practices if D can show that it was customary for a person in P's position to consent to a certain act.

Express Consent

Explicitly allowing someone to perform an act, which is very clear.

Objective Manifestation of consent

If it reasonably seemed to the D that the P consented, consent is held to exist regardless of the P's subjective state of mind.