Battery
Defendant intends to cause harmful or offensive contact, without plaintiff’s consent
Defendant intends contact to be harmful or offensive
The contact results
The resulting contact is harmful or offensive
Assault
Defendant intends to cause plaintiff imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact
The apprehension is one that would arouse the mind of a reasonable person
The plaintiff’s mental peace is invaded
False Imprisonment
Defendant intends to confine another without lawful privilege
within a limited area set by defendant
for any appreciable time, no matter how short
plaintiff is unaware of the harm or, if unaware, is physically harmed
Intentional Inflict of Emotional Distress
Defendant intentionally acts recklessly
in an extreme and outrageous manner which
causes plaintiff severe emotional distressÂ
What is extreme and outrageous conduct in an IIED claim?
Repeated behavior over time
Abuse of power
Conduct directed at a person the defendant knows is vulnerableÂ
Intent
The purpose to obtain the result or the substantial certainty that the result will follow
Transferred intent
1. Intent to harm someone but harms another personÂ
2. Intent to commit one tort but commits anotherÂ
Offensive contact
Does not have to be tangible
unconsented-to contactÂ
cannot be emotional offense
Imminence
Action that will occur without significant delayÂ
ApprehensionÂ
Awareness that a harmful or offensive contact may occur
not the same as fearÂ
Trespass to land
One who intends to enter or causes another to enter upon the land of anotherÂ
intent need not be trespass, intent to enter is enoughÂ
Conversion of chattelÂ
Intentional exercise of substantial dominion over a chattel thatÂ
so seriously interferes with Plaintiff's right to control the chattel that
Defendant may justly be required to pay for the full value of the chattelÂ
Dominion
Treating chattel as if it is your ownÂ
Trespass to chattelÂ
Physical contact or disposession of chattel thatÂ
intentionally interferes with the use and enjoyment of chattel in plaintiff's posession and
plaintiff therefore was harmed or dispossessed of the chattelÂ
Harm must be to the owner's materially valuable interest in the physical condition, quality, or value of the chattelÂ
or the owner is deprived of the use for the chattel for a substantial timeÂ
Affirmative defensesÂ
Defenses that attempt to justify the defendant's conduct in response to the plaintiff's apparent misconduct.Â
Privileged to defend as long as force used in defense wasnt excessive in degree or kind
Self-defenseÂ
Defendant's action could be justified as self-defense if there wasÂ
an actual or reasonably apparent threat to his/her/their safety andÂ
the force employed was not excessive in degree or kind
Defense of others
A person may defend third persons under about the same circumstances as they may defend themselves
caveat: defendant assumes the risk of reasonable mistake where they may have no defense
Defense of propertyÂ
Defendant may use reasonable force against another person who is threatening to infringe on one's possessory interest in such property
property belongs to the possessor of land not just the owner of the land
human life is more valuable than propertyÂ
Recapture of chattel defense
Privilege of forcible recapture is limited to more or less immediate capture.
Once property is taken for some period of time, the owner must remedy via courts.Â
Arrest and detention privilege defense
One who reasonably believes that another has tortiously taken a chattel upon his premises, or has failed to make cash payment for a chattel purchase or services rendered there, is privileged (without arresting the other) to detain them on the premises for the time necessary for a reasonable investigation of facts.
To bring an arrest and detention privilege defense, there must be
Reasonable cause
for a proper purpose
in a reasonable manner
for a reasonable amount of time
Consent defense
One can act on the reasonable appearance of consent so long as the appareance of consent was not itself induced by misrepresentation or by a basic mistake of which the defendant was awareÂ
Private and Public Necessity Privilege defense
Privileges of public and private necessity which are based on policy rather than the plaintiff's apparent conduct or misconduct
Private Necessity defense
Generally involves defendant trespassing or damaging another person's property to protect oneself, their property, or a small number of people.
Public necessity defense
When a defendant acts upon a reasonable belief that trespassing or damaging another's property is necessary to prevent harm to the greater community.Â
If there is a reasonable belief but it later appears that no action is needed, then defense still applies