Intentional Torts and Affirmative Defenses

what is battery?

an intentional infliction of bodily harm upon another person or persons

what is the prima facie case for battery?

1. Act

2. Intent

3. Harmful or offensive contact

4. caused by the Defendant’s act (causation)

5. either directly or indirectly

what is defined as the “act” of battery?

an external manifestation of an actor’s will

what is intent?

the actor desires to cause a consequence to result from his act, or believes that the consequences are substantially certain from it

intent formula

purpose OR substantial certainty

what is purpose?

the desire for a certain consequence to result from an unwanted physical contact

what is substantial certainty?

the knowledge that a certain consequence is almost certain to occur as a result of unwanted physical contact

how do you determine intent?

the action of unwanted physical contact either meets the threshold for purpose or substantial certainty

how do the Restatements define intent?

the act must be done for the purpose of causing the contact, or with knowledge on the actor’s part that such contact is substantially certain to be produced

do you need to bear ill will in order to satisfy the intent requirement for battery?

NO

an example of bearing no ill will but still being liable for battery

Sarah breaks her arm at a roller rink. Jean works the front desk at said roller rink. When Sarah breaks her arm, Jean rushes over and tries to set Sarah’s broken arm. While Jean was only trying to help, Sarah said that she found the contact unwelcome. Jean bore no ill will towards Sarah, but can still satisfy the “intent” requirement for battery.

if an act is voluntary but not intentional, does it meet the intent requirement for battery?

NO

an example of voluntary but not intentional (battery)

Chu gets off the city bus but fails to look carefully. In getting of the bus, she does not see Thomas walking on the sidewalk and bumps into him. Chu’s act in getting of the bus was voluntary and deliberate, but she did not intend to bump into Thomas while taking that action. Therefore, this actions fails to satisfy the intent requirement for battery.

what is the purpose of the intent requirement?

to confine intentional tort liability to a higher standard of wrongdoing than mere carelessness

what is transferred intent?

an actor tries to batter one person and actually causes a harmful or offensive contact to another

example of transferred intent

Chu throws a heavy rock at Sarah, hoping to hit her. Chu’s has terrible aim and the rock actually hits Jane. Jane was the actual victim of the harmful contact but Chu intended to hit Sarah. Can Chu be liable for battery against Jane? Yes.

rationale for transferred intent doctrine

it would be really bad if you were exonerated just because you actually intended to hit someone else. It attempts to achieve a sensible result despite the lack of intent towards the person actually contacted.

what if you attempt one intentional tort but actually cause another?

transferred intent doctrine allows recovery under this scenario

example of transferred intent where you intend to cause one intentional tort but actually cause another

Chu tries to hit Smith with a hammer but misses, and the hammer hits the wall instead. Smith is placed in fear of a harmful contact but no harmful contact ever actually occurs. Chu is liable for assault even though she actually intended to commit battery.

example of transferred intent where you intend to cause one intentional tort but actually cause another

Chu tries to scare Lopez by shooting near where Lopez is standing. But because Chu is a terrible shot, she actually hits Lopez in the arm instead. Chu intended to commit assault but actually ended up committing a battery. Chu is liable for battery against Lopez through the transferred intent doctrine.

scenarios where transferred intent doctrine can apply

1. you intend to commit a tort but end up committing it against someone other than the person you intended to hurt

2. you intend to commit a specific tort but actually end up committing a different one

what kind of intentional contact will support a claim for battery?

it has to be harmful or offensive; if its socially acceptable within the context of that situation, its most likely neither harmful nor offensive.

example of examining social context in determining harmful or offensive contact in a claim for battery

1. Chu and Smith are good friends at work and like to greet each other by jumping on the other from the back and placing their friend in a headlock. It is common for people in this office to greet other in a roughhousing manner. Molly has been working at this office for 5 years. Chu greets Molly by placing her in a headlock. Is Chu liable for a tort of battery against Molly?

   1. No. In this office, this would be considered a socially acceptable greeting and therefore not meet the threshold for harmful or offensive contact.

2. What if Molly was actually a brand new employee and this was her first day at this job. Would Chu be liable for a tort of battery against Molly?

   1. Yes. Molly doesn’t know the workplace manner of this environment - its her first day on the job; a reasonable person in Molly’s place would probably find this contact to be offensive.

how do courts determine if a contact is offensive?

1. objective standard: reasonable person

2. would a reasonable person in the circumstance of the victim find this contact offensive?

Intent: examining harmful/offensive contact vs the (foreseeable AND unforeseeable) consequences of said contact

1. Bruce and Cass are sworn enemies. Bruce wants to humiliate Cass in front of everyone by tripping him as Cass leaves the Senate building. Unfortunately, Cass trips and falls down 20 flights of stairs and suffers a severe concussion and multiple broken bones. Bruce intended to trip Cass and thought Cass would stumble and fall. Cass ended up having a much more serious consequence as a result of Bruce’s contact.

   1. Will Bruce be held liable for Cass’s severe injuries?

2. A: Yes. If the contact itself was harmful or offensive, and Bruce’s actions constitute a battery, then Bruce is held liable for ALL consequences of said battery, even if those consequences of that harmful/offensive contact were unintended.

3. Case Example: Vosburg v Putney

   1. kid A kicks kid B’s shin in a schoolhouse. contact itself was deemed offensive. Kid B’s leg gets amputated as a result of the offensive contact. kid A is held liable for all consequences of the battery, even if the consequences themselves were unintended or unforeseeable.

What constitutes an unauthorized contact?

1. yes, it means physical contact to another person’s body

2. But, it also extends to their sphere of personal autonomy, like their coat or hat

   1. Things that are closely associated with her being

do you need to be present at the time of contact for it to be a battery?

1. NO

2. Example: Toby is a gardener who recently got his garden robbed of expensive flowers. He lost a lot of money as a result of the theft, and set out booby traps to catch the thief. the booby trap was a trip wire attached to a high force BB gun that shoots out rubber pellets at 200mph. Frank and John were playing catch and John accidentally tosses Frank’s ball over the wall and into the garden. Frank goes over the wall to retrieve it, and in the process sets off a booby trap which shatters his leg bone.

what is assault?

1. the defendant acts with intent to:

   1. Cause a harmful or offensive contact to another person or third party AND

   2. An imminent apprehension of such contact

2. The other party was reasonably placed in imminent apprehension of such a contact

what is the requirement for assault?

intentional conduct

how is intent defined in assault?

purpose OR substantial certainty

how does a defendant act with purpose when liable for assault?

they act with purpose to cause apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact

how does a defendant have substantial certainty when liable for assault?

they have knowledge that their conduct, will most certainly, cause the victim to anticipate immediate harmful or offensive contact

what does it mean to put someone in “imminent apprehension”?