Tort Law: Key Concepts, Types, and Defenses

Cracking Open the Eggshell Skull Rule

if you have a pre-existing health condition, and someone else's negligence causes an injury to you, they are also responsible for any additional harm your pre-existing health condition may cause you.

The definition of "Tort" and the origins of this term

- "a civil wrong (other than a breach of contract)

- that causes injury or other damage

- to provide a legal remedy such as compensation."•

- French for "injury"or "wrong," and has its roots in the Latin word tortus, which means twisted

The four major purposes of tort law are:

1. provide a peaceful means for settling differences when one party wrongs another

2. to deter wrongful conduct;

3. to make injured parties whole - i.e.,to restore them to their original position prior to injury, or, to compensate them for their injury

4. each defendant is only liable for the damages corresponding to their degree of fault.

The Basics of Tort Law

Two notions serve as the basis of all torts:

- wrongs

-compensation

The four major classes of Torts

1. Intentional torts

2. Negligence

3. Products Liability cases

4. Strict liability cases

The meaning of intent

- The desire to bring about the consequence of the act or omission,

or

- The substantially certain knowledge that the consequence will follow from the act or omission

harmful vs offensive contact

- Harmful contact is contact that involves physical injury or impairment, pain, or illness

versus

Offensive contact is contact that would offend the dignity of an ordinary person who is not unduly sensitive

assault

an act that intentionally causes an apprehension ofan imminent harmful or offensive contact

or

an act that intentionallycauses an apprehension of an imminentbattery

Elements of Assault

- Voluntary act

-Intent to cause either

-Apprehension

-Causation

Assault: Defenses/Counterarguments

- Absence of elements

- No intent

-No apprehension

-The imminent harmful or offensivecontact would have occurred withoutthe Δ's act

Assault: Damages

- The harm or damage done to πcomes in their apprehension•

- recover compensatory damages for the apprehension ,including pain and suffering, medical bills, lost wages•

-acts out of hatred or malice --> punitive damages

Respondeat Superior(assault)

employee is liable for torts committed employer may also be held liable

Doctrine of Transferred Intent

A intends to assault B, but, in fact,assaults C

A is liable for assaulting c

Transferred intent is possible with

- Assault

- Battery

-False imprisonment

Basics of Battery

a harmful oroffensive contact with a personcaused by the Δ's intent to cause thecontact or to cause an apprehensionof an imminent harmful or offensivecontact

Elements of Battery

-Voluntary act

-Intent to cause either

An imminent contact, or

An apprehension of an imminent contact

-Harmful or offensive contact

-causation of the harmful or offensive contact

Defenses/Counterarguments Battery

-conduct was involuntary

- No intent

-Contact was neither harmful nor offensive

- The harmful or offensive contact would have occurred without the Δ's act\

-consented

- assumption of risk

-defending self, another person, or property

-lawfuly disciplining or arresting

Doctrine of avoidable consequences

harm is aggravated by π's failure totake reasonable steps to mitigate theharm

Damages Battery

- compensatory damages for the contact, including pain and suffering, medical bills, lost wages

- acts out of hatred or malice,punitive damages often awarded

Respondeat Superior(battery)

-An employee who commits battery is personally liable for the tort•

-His or her employer will also beliable for battery if the conduct ofthe employee was within the scopeof his/her employment (i.e.,employee must be furthering abusiness objective of the employerat the time) rather than being offon a "frolic" of his or her own.

infliction of emotional distressgenerally happens in one of two waysin torts

1. As the "pain and suffering" component of another tort (i.e., the emotional distress that results from the commission of the other tort);

2. As mental distress in the absence of the commission of another tort (i.e.,emotional distress that results when no other tort has been committed)

Elements of IIED

- Voluntary act that consists of extreme oroutrageous conduct

- Intent to inflict severe emotional distress (or knowledge that something would)

- Causation: act was a substantial factor in producing severe emotional distress

- suffers severe emotional distress (i.e.,substantial mental anguish)

Emotional Distress Must Be Severe

- Minor inconvenience or annoyance is not enough

- must experience severe fright, horror, grief, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, worry, or nausea

- Severity of feelings measured by their intensity and duration

- In most states, it is not necessary for the πto suffer any physical injury or harm (but if they do they may be more likely to receive damages)

In order to make a valid claim for emotional distress, a plaintiff must establish four element (in Mass)

1. prove that the defendant intended

2. conduct was"'extreme and outrageous,'(beyond decency)

3. prove defendant caused the plaintiff's distress

4.rove that the emotional distress s/he sustained "was 'severe' a ( no reasonable person expected to endure)

Defenses/Counterarguments IIED

- involuntary

-unpleasant and wrongful, but it was not extreme or outrageous

- No intent

-reasonable person would not have reacted as π did

-unusual sensitivity

- No causation

- consented

- defending self, another person, or property

-disciplining or arresting

false imprisonment

a complete and intentional confinement within physical boundaries set by Δ

False Imprisonment Elements

1) a complete and intentional confinement within physical boundaries set by Δ

2) Intent

3) Causation

4) aware of confinement or suffered actual harm

Defenses/Counterarguments False Imprisonment

- accidental

-no confinement

- safe and inoffensive means of escape available

- threat of force related to the future

- defendant not substantial factor

-unaware of the confinement or was not harmed by it

- consented

- Defending oneself, another, property

- investigation

Damages False Imprisonment

- does not have to prove actual harm unless π was unaware of being confined

- in most cases, confinement is considered harm enough

- recover compensatory damages for humiliation, injury to π's reputation, illness or other physical discomfort, medical bills, lost wages, damage to π's personal property