torts cases and rules

Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc. (1967) Supreme Court of Texas

In this case, Fisher (P), while in line at a buffet luncheon, had his plate snatched from his hands by an employee of the Carrousel Motor Hotel (D), who shouted at him that he will not serve a black man. Fisher was not injured through the incident but was heavily offended and sued for damages for battery. The issue here was whether someone can recover for battery without physical contact, only contact with something in plaintiff’s hand. Here, the court held for the plaintiff, reversing the trial and appellate courts decisions, as battery involves an offense to the person's dignity, not just a physical injury; an unpermitted contact with something closely identified with the body, may be just as offensive as an unpermitted contact with the person.

I de S. and Wife v. W. de S. (1348) (England)

In this case, W (D) was striking the door of I’s tavern, and when I’s wife stuck her head out the window to tell him to stop, he struck at her with a hatchet, but missed her. The issue for the court to decide was whether an act that causes an apprehension of harm, without harm, constitutes assault, and if plaintiff may recover damages when there was no physical harm. This was a landmark case that held for the plaintiffs, and was one of the earliest decisions to recognize mental injury and the need to compensate for such. The holding set the precedent that: an act that causes another to be fearful of a harmful or offensive contact is known as an assault, and the plaintiff may recover damages, physical contact or harm is not required to recover damages for a tort of assault.

Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill (1933) Court of Appeals of Alabama

In this case, Mrs. Hill went to get her clock repaired at Sapp’s work, and Sapp (while intoxicated) said he would fix her clock if she came behind the counter and let him love on her and pet her and then allegedly made a grab for her over a counter. Mrs. Hill jumped back despite evidence finding that the dimensions of which made contact virtually impossible. Sapp was an employee of western union at the time, so the Hills filed an action to recover for assault against Western Union, rather than Sapp specifically, per respondeat superior. The issues for the court were whether assault can be committed when the actor lacks the apparent ability to carry out his threat, and whether WU would be liable if an assault occurred, by Sapp- an employee, while Sapp was managing the WU office and conducting company business. The court found that apparent ability to carry out a threat is necessary for assault, and Sapp did not have that here so there was no assault, and WU would not be liable as Sapp’s conduct served only his personal desires, did not further Western Union’s business, and therefore fell outside the scope of employment.

Big Town Nursing Home, Inc. v. Newman (1970) Civil Court of Appeals of Texas

In this case, Newman, a 67-year-old man with many health problems, was taken to a nursing home by his nephew. The papers said he could leave whenever he wanted, but when he tried to leave, he was told he couldn't, he was also locked in a part of the nursing home with people who had intense ailments/ diagnoses that he did not share. He tried to escape many times but was always caught and brought back. Once, he was tied to a chair for over five hours… all the while the nursing home did not have a court order for his confinement. When he finally escaped on November 11, 1968, he had lost 30 pounds. He sued Big Town (D) for false imprisonment. The issue for the court was whether one can be held liable for exemplary damages in a false imprisonment case if the false imprisonment is done intentionally in violation of the rights of the plaintiff. The court held that there was no legal justification for restraining Newman, Newman was aware of it and actually signed an admission agreement that said he would not be held against his will, they denied his request to be released, and there was affirmative conduct by the nursing home to restrain him. Thus the court found he was falsely imprisoned, but the court also determined the amount of damages awarded by the lower court was excessive.

Parvi v City of Kingston (1977) NY Court of Appeals

In this case, two Kingston police officers found Donald Parvi and the Dugan brothers arguing loudly and appearing intoxicated. After warning them to leave or be arrested, the officers placed Parvi and Dixie Dugan in a patrol car and drove them outside city limits to an isolated, abandoned golf course near the state Thruway, giving no directions home, Parvi did ask to be dropped off somehwhere else at one point in the drive, but was refused. Parvi and Dugan then wandered onto the Thruway (350 ft away) and were struck by a vehicle; Dugan was killed and Parvi severely injured. Parvi sued the City of Kingston for false imprisonment and negligence, and the doctrinal issues for the court of appeals here were: whether the City of Kingston falsely imprisoned Parvi, and whether the city was negligent in their treatment of him. Parvi’s recollection was questioned throughout the various stages of trial, so another issue was tasked to the court- whether Ia plaintiff's present recollection of previous consciousness of confinement required to make out a prima facie case for false imprisonment? The court remanded the case and ordered a retrial, reasoning that Parvi made a prima facie case for false imprisonment because the officers intended to confine him without consent and outside any privilege or justification. The court emphasized that Parvi's lack of later recollection did not negate his awareness of confinement at the time. For negligence, the court explained that the police owed a duty of care once they took Parvi into custody, and abandoning him in a potentially dangerous location could constitute a breach of that duty. The court found it was reasonably foreseeable that an intoxicated person might wander from the drop-off point and encounter harm. The court concluded that these issues should be decided by a jury rather than dismissed outright.

Hardy v. LaBelle’s Distributing Co. (1983) Supreme Court of Montana

In this case, Hardy (P), a temporary employee of LaBelle's Distributing Co. (LaBelle) (D), was asked by another employee to tour the store. She was then taken to the manager's office where she was allegedly detained and informed that she had been accused of stealing a watch. Hardy (P) denied the accusations and voluntarily underwent a polygraph examination. She passed and was given an apology. She then brought suit for false imprisonment, contending that she had been detained against her will, although at trial, Hardy (P) testified that she voluntarily stayed in the office to attempt to exonerate herself. The jury returned a verdict for LaBelle (D), and Hardy (P) appealed. The issue for this court is whether false imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of an individual against his will, as Hardy claimed happened to her. The court determined that false imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of an individual against his will. Yet, this case, Hardy (P) admitted that she felt restrained from leaving the office, yet would have stayed anyway to exonerate herself. Thus, she was not restrained against her will and was not falsely imprisoned. The lower court’s decision, against Hardy, was affirmed.

Enright v. Groves (1977) Colorado Court of Appeals

State Rubbish Collectors Association v. Siliznoff (1952) Supreme Court of California

In this case, Siliznoff (D) had collected rubbish from a certain brewery while he was not a member of the State Rubbish Collectors Assn. (P). This action prompted the Association (P) to threaten to injure Siliznoff (D), ruin his truck, or destroy his business unless he attended their board meeting and joined the ranks of their membership and paid them dues. After two hours at the board meeting Siliznoff agreed to join the Association and pay for the Acme account, and signed notes indicating such. Siliznoff was so frightened from what occurred during the dispute that he became ill, vomited several times, and missed work for several days. The Association sued Siliznoff to collect on the notes, and Siliznoff filed a counterclaim seeking cancellation of the notes because of duress and lack of consideration. Siliznoff also sued and sought general and punitive damages for the alleged assaults made by the Association. The issue for the court here is whether the evidence submitted by Siliznoff sufficient to establish an assault against his person, and this court used the intensity of the threats by the plaintiff to establish the, new at the time, IIED rule, setting precedent for emotional distress. The court concluded that a cause of action is established when it is shown that one, in the absence of any privilege, intentionally subjects another to the mental suffering incident to serious threats to his physical wellbeing, whether or not the threats are made under such circumstances as to constitute a technical assault.

Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida (1958) Supreme Court of Florida

Harris v. Jones

Taylor v. Vallelunga (1959) District Court of Appeals of California