Torts - Intentional Torts

Intent - definition

desire to cause consequences, or belief they are substantially certain to occur

transferred intent

Intent transfers between assault and battery. Maybe for false imprisonment, trespass to land or chattel.

Doctrine of Mistake

Wrong ID = hit the person you targeted but mistook their ID (still have intent)

Wrong person = hit the person you aimed at but not the goal (still have intent)

rule from Garrat v. Daley

Children can be liable for intentional torts if they have intent.

Rule from Kearby

Mentally ill can be liable for intentional torts as long as they had the purpose of doing the act.

Battery - definition

Acts intended to cause harmful or offensive contact, where harmful or offensive contact directly or indirectly results.

Battery - elements

• voluntary act

• intent

• causation

• harmful/offensive

• to a person

• damages

rule from WLW

Battery can be intentionally blowing cigarette smoke onto an anti-smoking advocate with a known sensitivity.

Has to be offensive to a reasonable sense of dignity to be harmful or offensive contact.

Rule from Bohrman

A battery plaintiff must prove that the defendant intentionally made the harmful or offensive contact that caused the injury.

Rule from Cohen v. Smith

A battery plaintiff can raise that no consent and a known religious sensitivity can influence what is considered offensive contact.

Definition of Assault

Tortious creation of fear, reasonable apprehension of imminent harm

Elements of Assault

• Act (words not enough)

• intent (act with intent to cause apprehension of the contact itself)

• reasonable apprehension (of battery/FI)

  • awareness (not fear)

  • imminent threat (future harm not enough but words/circumstances may suffice)

  • apparent ability to carry out the threat

• threat of battery or FI

• to a person

Rule from I de S et Ux v. W de S

Do not need actual violence or harm for assault - just reasonable apprehension.

Rule from Castro v. Local 1199

Assault requires an imminent threat that puts P into reasonable apprehension of harmful or offensive contact. Screaming and slamming fists is not serious enough.

Rule from Altieri v. Colasso

Under transferred intent, one can be liable for battery without intent to cause contact with another. Kid throwing rocks, not meaning to hit anyone. Don’t need intent to cause the exact injury to meet standard for battery.

Elements of False Imprisonment

• act

• intent

• confinement (unlawful confinement or restraint, immediate physical coercion)

  • physical barriers, force, threat of, omissions, duty to act, false arrest

• victim is either

  • conscious of confinement (unless infancy/incompetency)

  • harmed (direct or direct)

Citizen’s Arrest

FI N/A when someone is detained by another exercising a lawful citizen’s arrest.

(1) Felony happened

(2) Private citizen arrestor needs reasonable ground to suspect that the person did the felony

Rule form Dupler v. Seubert

Behavior can suggest confinement. Don’t have to leave your property (still FI).

While paid, not FI, but after, FI.

FI when D is confined in fixed boundaries and P aware or harmed.

Rule from Maniaci v. Marquette

When legal process is used, not false imprisonment but detention under color of law/abuse of process.

Abuse of process = using criminal or civil process against another to accomplish purpose for which a process is not designed.

Definition of Malicious Prosecution

A private person who initiates or procures the institution of criminal proceedings against another who is not guilty of the offense charged is subject to liability for malicious prosecution if:

(1) he initiates or procures the proceedings without probable cause and primarily for a purpose other than that of bringing an offender to justice; and

(2) the proceedings have terminated in favor of the accused

Elements of Malicious Prosecution

• criminal or civil prosecution (D v P)

• termination of process in favor of P

• malice (bad faith)

  • wanton disregard for the law

  • showing ill will or vindictiveness

  • restatement - “improper purpose” is enough

• no probable cause

• damage to P

who is immune to malicious prosecution?

judges and prosecutors

not cops or private parties

Elements of Abuse of Process

• use of legal process (criminal or civil)

  • within litigation

  • usually for interim processes

• against another person

• to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed

**proceedings do NOT have to be over or end in favor of P

Elements of IIED

• Outrageous and extreme - conduct

  • words can be enough

  • beyond bounds of decency/socially tolerable conduct in a civilized society

• intent or recklessness

  • purpose/desire - intent

  • substantial certainty - intent

  • recklessness

• causation

• serious emotional harm

  • a reasonable person would be harmed +

  • P was harmed

  • P’s harm is severe

Rule from Slocum

IIED requires serious emotional distress that was intended to produce the harm.

Rule from Jones

No evidence of IIED where a sexual assault IIED P missed no days of work, isolated incident and no knowledge of a particular vulnerability. Though power differential does matter.

Outrageousness factors: conduct at issue; time period; relationship between parties; knowledge of a particular vulnerability.

Outrageousness factors from Jones

1. the conduct at issue

2. the time period

3. the relationship between the parties

4. knowledge of a particular vulnerability

Rule from Swenson

Workplace discrimination (sexism) can be outrageous for IIED (but we need all other factors too).

Defamation for Public Figures - IIED

1. there was a false statement of fact (hyperbole, joke, satire)

2. actual malice (knew/reckless disregard for falsity)

Rule from Hustler

for IIED, public figures need falsity + actual malice (knowledge of falsity/reckless disregard). No falsity when something is parody.

Rule from Synder

Even for private figures, on speech-related IIED claims on matters of public concern, need to show actual malice and a false statement of fact.

1A protects speech on matters of political, social, and other concern to the community.

What was said, where it was said, how it was said

Elements of intentional interference with contractual or economic relations

1. relationship: a valid K or business relationship

2. knowledge: interferer knows about it

3. improper & intentional: interference

4. breach caused by the interference

5. damage caused by the interference (P has to show)

Elements of improper interference

• nature of conduct

• motive of interferor

• interest interfered with

• interests advanced by interferor

• social interest

  • freedom of action of interferor VS

  • contractual interest of other party

• proximity between conduct and interference

• relations between parties

• (not privileged)

wrongful conduct

Interference with a contract is tortious when there is this.

• D acted for purpose of appropriating the benefits of P’s K

• D’s conduct was an independent & intentional legal wrong

• D engaged in conduct for the sole purpose of causing P harm

when is interference with economic expectations tortious?

When D commits an independent legal wrong

rule from Calbom v. Knudtzon

An unprivileged person who causes a third party to end a business relationship with P is liable for pecuniary harm.

P shows:

• there was a K

• that D knew about

• D meant to interfere

• the interference caused breach/termination

• which caused damages to P

• (no excuse/privilege)

Rule from Mother’s Cookie

To determine whether interference is improper, the court balances the culpability of D’s conduct with actionable interference.

When trying to manipulate the market just to profit, that’s improper.

Rule from EPIC v. Superior Court

Boycotts generally not improper economic interference because peaceful protest is protected speech under 1A.

Balance:

• the goal of interference

• the importance of the interest interfered with

• consider all circumstances like relationships, conduct etc.

improper economic interference

In the common law, unjustified and unprivileged interference with the prospective economic advantage of another can create tort liability even without breach of contract.

rule from NAACP v. Claireborne

Nonviolent boycotts are protected as free speech, so they are not intentional economic interference.

Justifications for Intentional Interference with K

• competitors (at will Ks)

• responsible for welfare of another

• bona fide interest

• advice

• K is illegal or against public policy

not: financial interest or business policy (only expectation)

justifications for interference in expectation

• competitors

• financial interest

• responsible for welfare of another

• advice

• bona fide interest

• business policy

• illegal or against public policy

Different from justifications for interference w/ K because two additional defenses (financial interest, business policy)

Intentional Misrepresentation - Definition

One who fraudulently makes a misrepresentation of

• fact

• opinion

• intention

• or law

for the sole purpose of

• inducing another to act

• or to refrain from action

• in justifiable reliance upon it

is subject to liability to the other in deceit for pecuniary loss

Elements of intentional misrepresentation

• material misrepresentation (fact/opinion/law)

  • knowledge that it’s not true

  • or reckless disregard for truth/falsity

• intent to induce reliance by the victim

  • act

  • refrain

• justifiable reliance by victim

  • materiality

• damages

material misrepresentation by implication/omission?

requires a fiduciary duty/claim which is only partially true to show liability

Rule from Nader

For fraudulent misrepresentation, there must have been an affirmative misrepresentation made to P by D. Omissions must be made knowingly, to deceive people.

Overbooking not beyond airline’s control.

Rule from Trump Complaint

There is a duty to disclose where you have a fiduciary duty or the omission makes it misleading. Inflating the value of property to banks is intentional misrepresentation where there is that duty to disclose.

• material misrep: the inflated values

• knowledge: not a good faith difference

• intent: wanted banks to rely on it

• justifiable reliance: by banks for lending

• pecuniary damages: hard to show

intentional misrepresentation that risks physical harm

An actor who makes a misrepresentation is subject to liability to another for physical harm which results from an act done by the other or a third person in reliance upon the truth of the representation, if the actor

• intends his statement to induce reliance or should realize that it is likely to induce action by the other or a third person

  • which involves unreasonable risk of physical harm to the other

  • and the actor knows that the statement is false or that he has not the knowledge he professes

Elements of Self Defense

• use reasonable force

  • which is necessary

  • which the actor believes is necessary

    • reasonable belief

    • actually held

• to defend from imminent risk of immediate harm

• not the first aggressor

When can the first aggressor claim self defense?

withdrew from the fight + gave clear notice of withdrawal

can you have reasonable mistake and self defense?

In about half of jurisdictions

What do you pay with self defense?

• complete defense: nothing

• partial defense: some compensatory but no punitive

Rule from Drabek v. Sabley

Cannot claim self defense when the harm against you is already over. To qualify, must be imminent danger at the time of action.

Defense of Others - elements

• Use reasonable force

  • believe is necessary

    • reasonable belief

    • actually held

• to protect against an imminent danger

  • to a third party

Defense of Property

Okay to use reasonable force to defend property but cannot use force that would inflict serious bodily injury or kill. no spring guns

Consent

Defense to some intentional torts.

• usually a full defense

• unless fraud, duress, coercion

• e.g. boxer

Elements - Private Necessity

• Reasonable belief there is an imminent danger to a greater interest that is your own

• harm another’s property in defense of your own interest

  • do minimal harm to protect that interest

  • PAY for use (comp, no punitive)

Elements - Public Necessity

• Reasonable belief there’s an imminent danger to a greater public interest

• using property to prevent public disaster

  • no compensation required

  • do minimal harm to protect that interest

Rule from Lake Erie

When there is private necessity, liable without fault for compensatory damages but not punitive damages. Intentionally using another’s property for own benefit and damage it.