intentional torts

intentional torts

occur when an actor intends to harm someone and have the highest degree of fault

intent

purpose or substantial certainty

purpose

goal or desire

substantial certainty

knowledge which makes an actor substantially certain that something will occur

garrett v. dailey

mere absence of intent to injure P did not absolve D of liability if D knew with substantial certainty that P would attempt to sit down where the chair had been

doctrine of transferred intent

intent can transfer between torts (battery, assault, false imprisonment, IIED) or between victims

hall v. mcbryde

D’s intent to put youths in car in apprehension of a harmful or offensive bodily contact by aiming and firing a loaded gun at them transferred to intent to battery for P who was actually shot and injured

causation

link or connection between the defendant’s past conduct and plaintiff’s injury

but-for causation

plaintiff must prove that but-for the defendant’s action or inaction, the plaintiff’s injury would not have happened

battery

intent to cause unwanted harmful or offensive contact and that harmful or offensive contact results

elements of battery

1) intent
2) causation
3) harmful or offensive
4) contact (direct or indirect)

direct contact

hitting/pushing someone, having sex

indirect contact

pipe smoke, strobing GIF

richardson v. hennly

D causing P to come into contact with pipe smoke constituted indirect contact because P suffered ill effects to her health from the smoke

eichenwald v. rivello

causing P to come into contact with a strobing GIF constitutes direct contact because D knew that it would be harmful to epileptics like P

assault

intent to cause a reasonable and imminent apprehension of a battery

elements of assault

1) intent
2) causation
3) reasonable apprehension
4) imminent apprehension of a battery

reasonable apprehension

requires a reasonable expectation that something will happen (reasonable person standard: how would a reasonable person act if placed in P’s situation?)

imminent apprehension of a battery

there must be a current and immediate threat that a battery will occur, not a future one

cullison v. medley

assault occurred when D intended to cause P to believe they were about to be battered by waving a gun in P’s face

bouton v. allstate

opening a door to trick-or-treaters with toy guns on halloween would not have put a reasonable person in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery

brower v. ackerley

words threatening action in the near future are not enough to be imminent; there must be an immediate threat

false imprisonment

intent to cause detention or confinement of a person who is conscious of their detention or harmed by it

elements of false imprisonment

1) intent
2) causation
3) detention/confinement/retention (direct or indirect)
4) P’s consciousness of their detention OR harmed by it

direct detention/confinement/retention

physically restraining someone

indirect detention/confinement/retention

confining someone to their own home due to fear, person has intent to confine them

whirl v. kern

purpose to detain began when P was initially booked into jail and continued when imprisonment became unlawful

smith v. comair

a mere obstruction of P’s right to go where he pleased in an airport was not a total restraint

trespass to land

occurs when one enters land or causes someone or something to do so, remains on the land, or leaves something behind on the land

elements for trespass to land

1) intent
2) causation
3) entry (self, thing, or another), staying there, OR leaving something behind

intent for trespass to land

only intent to enter is required (doesn’t matter if D didn’t intend to trespass)

thomas v. harrah’s vicksburg

intending to go on land was sufficient to hold Ds liable (even though they were doing construction, they didn’t have permission from owner to be on the land)

trespass to chattel

occurs when someone dispossesses or intermeddles with someone else’s chattel

elements for trespass to chattel

1) intent
2) causation
3) dispossession OR harmful intermeddling

dispossession

taking or barring someone from using that item

harmful intermeddling

taking an item for some time and harming or changing its state (damaged physical condition, quality, or value)

koepnick v. sears

D’s dispossession for 15 minutes was not a substantial amount of time

conversion

occurs when an actor intentionally exercises control over another’s chattel that so seriously interferes with another’s right to the chattel that it may justify payment for the chattel’s full value

elements for conversion

1) intent
2) causation
3) exercises control over another’s chattel
4) so seriously interferes with another’s right to the chattel

pearson v. dodd

P’s documents were returned to his office and P was still able to use them for their intended purpose, so no conversion

intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)

occurs when someone engages in extreme and outrageous conduct that is intended to cause (or recklessly disregards the risk of causing) severe emotional distress and that severe emotional distress actually results

elements for iied

1) intent OR recklessness (conscious disregard)
2) causation
3) extreme and outrageous conduct
4) severe emotional distress

extreme and outrageous conduct

so far beyond the bounds of civilized society that a person would hear what occurred and say “that’s outrageous!”

severe emotional distress

mental or physical bodily harm as a result of mental harm (jx split where majority doesn’t require expert proof for serious mental injury but minority does)

strauss v. cilek

D having an affair with P’s wife was not enough to constitute outrageous conduct

jones v. clinton

mere sexual proposition or encounter on the part of D, that was brief and without threats or coercion, was not enough to establish outrageous conduct

miller v. willbanks

P did not need to show expert proof that she had a serious mental injury as a result of D’s actions because of majority jurisdiction

consent

voluntary agreement that negates wrongfulness of conduct, can be express (spoken/written) or implied (conduct, custom, circumstances)

limits to consent

fraud/duress, lack of capacity (minor, intoxication, incompetence), exceeding the scope of consent, consenting to sports

koffman v. garnett

scope of consent included being tackled by other players, but didn’t include being tackled by an adult coach

mcquiggan v. boy scouts of america

consenting to a paper clip game by playing that game meant that injury as a result of participation was not a battery, since participation in the game meant P knew there was a possibility of injury as a result

hogan v. tavzel

D’s knowledge that he had an STD prior to having sex with P, knowing that P had no knowledge of the STD, meant that there was no consent and D was liable for battery

mcpherson v. mcpherson

D not knowing that he had an STD prior to having sex with P wasn’t fraud, D needed to have knowledge of the STD in order to be liable for battery

shopkeeper’s privilege

a shopkeeper may detain a customer for a reasonable period of time if the shopkeeper has a reasonable belief that the person has stolen or is attempting to steal property, and the detention is conducted in a reasonable manner

elements for shopkeeper’s privilege

1) reasonable belief of theft
2) detention in reasonable manner
3) detention for a reasonable time

walmart v. resendez

P being held for 10-15 minutes by D was a reasonable amount of time to be detained

limited privilege of private necessity

intrusion or invasion onto property that is actually or reasonably appears necessary to protect, self, someone else, or property (liable for damages for harm done while entering/being on land)

absolute privilege of public necessity

intrusion or invasion or destruction onto property due to a reasonable apprehension of an imminent public disaster (not liable for damages)

self-defense

reasonable belief that force is necessary to prevent contact and the force used was reasonable

factors in determining whether use of dangerous weapon for self defense is justified

1) character and reputation of the attacker
2) belligerence of the attacker
3) large difference in size/strength between parties
4) overt act by the attacker
5) impossibility of a peaceful retreat

slayton v. mcdonald

D using a gun in self-defense was reasonable due to P’s advances and reputation, and D’s inability to retreat from the situation

defense of property

reasonable belief that force is necessary to protect property from a reasonable threat and the force used was reasonably limited and did not cause great bodily injury or death

woodard v. turnipseed

no threat from P, a 17-year-old under 5 feet tall, and D beating P with a broomstick causing a bruised kidney was not reasonable under the circumstances

katko v. briney

use of deadly force (or force that may cause great bodily injury) to defend property is never reasonable, even against thieves