Intentional Torts

Intentional Torts Flaschard

Restatement Intent Definition

A person acts with the intent to produce a consequence if:
a) the person acts with the purpose of producing the consequence OR
b) the person acts knowing that the consequence is substantially certain to result

Purpose Intent

The person acts with the purpose of producing the consequence

Knowledge Intent

The person acts knowing that the consequence is substantially certain to occur

Garett v. Daily rule

Established that defendants can be liable for both purpose and knowledge intent.

Voluntariness

For an act to be considered an “act” it must be voluntary.

Non-voluntary acts

Unconscious or reflexive acts

Polmatier v. Russ Rule

Insanity is still considered a voluntary act, albeit irrational intent

Transferred intetn

Intent transfers, and D is liable when:
1. D commits a different tort against P than the one they intended (excluding IIED)
2. D intends to commit a tort against X, but actually commits it against P

Battery Elements

1. D acts intending harmful OR offensive contact with a person or an imminent apprehension

2. An offensive or harmful contact with the P directly or indirectly results

To prove prima facie case of battery

1.Did D have requisite INTENT?
2. Was there CONTACT?
3. Was the contact HARMFUL or OFFENSIVE?

3rd Rest. Battery Intent

Single intent

Single battery intent

Intent to cause contact, regardless of if its harmful or offensive

Dual battery intent

1.Intent to cause contact AND
2. D intends contact to be, or knows it will be, harmful or offensive

Commonality of single and dual battery intent

Contact must occur

Contact

Contact need not be direct content with the plaintiff. Indirect contact is enough if it results in harmful or offensive contact

Indirect contact

1.Putting something into motion
2. Indirectly contacting P throuh something attatched to their body

Offensive contact

Context specific and culturally sensitive

Is proof of medical injury required for offensive contact?

NO.

Assault Elements

1.D acts intending to cause harmful/offensive contact to the other or a 3rd person, OR an imminent apprehension of contact
2. The other is thereby put in such imminent apprehension of contact

Reynolds v. McFarland rule

Harmful or offensive contact need not be direct for a D to be liable for battery

Assault intent

1.Purpose to put the other in an imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact
2. Substantial knowledge of putting the other in harmful or offensive contact

Assault striking distance

D doesn’t need to be in striking distance of the P, but he must be close enough so that he could get to striking distance almost at once.

Are words enough for assault?

Almost always, no.

Assault requires (that battery does not)

Plaintiffs awareness

Imminent apprehension

The expectation/anticipation that, if P were to take no other action, D’s conduct will result in harmful or offensive contact immediately.

Cullison v. Medley (assault takeaway)

Assault can arise from the totality of the circumstances. Even if the D never draws a weapon, surrounding the plaintiff, making threats, and gesturing towards a weapon contributes to the verbal threats against a P that would make him apprehend imminent harmful or offensive contact

Brower v. Ackerly (assualt takeaway)

Verbal threats over the phone are not enough to constitute assault. The defendant’s were not in striking distance of the plaintiff.