Torts Flashcards

Battery Elements

1. A acts

2. Intenting to cause contact with B that is

3. Harmful or offensive

4. AND harmful or offensive contact results

Intent is to make contact, NOT for that contact to be harmful or offensive!

HOWEVER, the purpose behind a contact can make the contact itself offensive!

Forward-thinking Tort Law Goals

Deterrence, consequences, efficiency

“What would happen if we do X?”

Backward-thinking Tort Law Goals

justice, fairness, rights

“What SHOULD we do about X?”

Alcorn v. Mitchell takeaway

Punitive damages may be awarded if tortious conduct involves malice, willfulness, wantonness, outrage, and indignity.

Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications takeaway

Contact that is offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity = offensive contact… disagreeable, nauseating, outrage to taste and sensibility, etc.

Contact can include liquids, smoke, sound, and maybe even light!

offenseive contact

contact that is offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity. Disagreeable, nauseating, outrage to taste and sensibility, etc.

1. Ask: Does it violate prevailing social standards about touching?

   1. For BOTH, try to be objective and make use of CONTEXT! 

   2. \→Time,  place, and relationship are key

All about offense to dignity via unpermitted invasion of the person!

Plaintiff

Who is the burden of production (providing evidence that a tort occurred) ALWAYS on?

Paul v. Holbrook takeaway

A battery claim does not require evidence that the defendant intended to and actually caused harm so long as there is evidence that the defendant intentionally touched the plaintiff in a manner that could be deemed offensive.

Cole v. Hibberd takeaway

Battery does not require intent to cause offense or harm—- merely intent to make contact!

Vosburg v. Putney takeaway

Tortfeasors must take their victims as they find them — Eggshell skull rule!

Garratt v. Dailey

For battery, intention/apprehension of contact is based on the purpose of causing the contact OR the knowledge on the part of the actor that such contact or apprehension is substantially certain to be produced.

Simply, knowledge of a sustantial certainty == intent. You know contact will happen? That’s intent. Same as crimlaw—we presume that the defendent intended the foreseeable results of their conduct.

Contact need not be made directly! Can be through an object, or even through the removal of an object.

Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel

Battery can occur through physical contact with an object on someone’s person, rather than the person themself, so long as the object is directly grasped by the hand which is so connected with one’s body as to be universally regarded as part of the person and thereby sharing the inviolability of the body.  (ex: clothing, a cane, a plate).

This concept is called extended personality.

Eihenwald v. Rivello takeaway

Digital images/light be considered “contact” for the purpose of battery.

Light is a physical thing! It is light waves, particles – just like the particles of tobacco smoke or perfume.

• Precedent says that physical force is “exerted through concrete bodies” vs “intellectual/emotional force”

Intent can be inferred from

△’s knowledge that contact was substantially certain to result from their actions.

HOWEVER, knowledge of risk alone is insufficient.

Just liek in criminal law — the jury can infer that the defendent intended the consequences of their actions.

Beach v. Hancock takeaway

Merely pointing a gun at someone in an angry/threatening way is assault, UNLESS the other party knows it is not loaded.

A gun is Schrodingers cat — don’t know if its loaded or empty until fired! So people will always assume loaded unless told directly otherwise.

Assault Elements

1. A acts

2. Intending to cause

   1. harmful or offensive contact with B, OR

   2. for B to apprehend an imminent harmful or offensive contact

3. AND A’s act causes B to reasonaly apprehend such a contact.

Note that apprehend == fear, NOT merely to perceive!

Assault via words

can be established IF when combined with other acts or circumstances, they put a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact

1. Analysis involves…

   1. tone

   2. gestures

   3. physical setting

   4. relationship

   5. size & gender differentialsall relevant circumstances that influence the perception of threat.

Brooker v. Silverthorne takeaway

the court ruled that words alone can constitute assault if they create a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm.

Threats must be imminent or future looking — “if i were there” isn’t a threat so much as it is a statement of frustration!

Furthermore, the mental/emotional firmenss of the individual matters. Must go by the reasonable person standard if they are of ordinary or extraordinary firmness.

HOWEVER, if the assaulted person lets it be know to the assaulter that they are of below-ordinary firmness and the assaulter still verbally “assaults”, then a lower standard (a “below ordinary firmness” standard) may be applied to allow the victim to recover.

Vetter v. Morgan takeaway

Threatening wWords CAN constitute assault when combined with acts/circumstances that could cause reasonable apprehension of imminent harm or offensive contact!

Being able to escape a harm does NOT preclude an assault.

Intent can be transferred…

1. Between people (different person, different tort)

2. Between torts (same person, different tort)

   1. Between people AND torts (different person, different tort)

In re White

“Intentional” battery CAN be accidental!! via transferred intent.

Consent in the Restatement of Torts

1. ⭐[C]onsent to conduct of another is effective for all consequences of the conduct and for the invasion of any interests resulting from it. 

2. If the person consenting to the conduct of another is induced to consent by 

   1. a substantial mistake concerning the 

      1. nature of the invasion of his interests or 

      2. the extent of the harm to be expected from it and  

   2. the mistake is 

      1. known to the other or 

      2. is induced by the other’s misrepresentation, 

   3. then the consent is not effective for the unexpected invasion or harm. 

   4. Consent is not effective if it is given under duress

Koffman v. Garnett takeaway

Consent must be knowing! You cannot consent to something you didn’t know about!

MUST consider/feel out the scope of consent!!!

A plaintiff may sue for battery upon being injured while playing an organized sport if the plaintiff did not expressly or implicitly agree to the harmful contact.

reasonable mistake as to consent

VALID when the defendent reasonably believes that the plaitiff consented based on the plaintiff’s conduct

INVALID when there is fraud, misrepresentation coercion, or duress

Fraud/Misrepresentation

1. Induced by a substantial mistak concerning…

   1. the nature of the invasion of his interests

   2. OR the extent of the harm to be expected from it, AND

2. the mistake is

   1. known to the other

   2. OR Is induced by the other’s misrepresentation

Coercion/Duress

A person’s consent is invalid if induced by coercion or duress, taking into account the parties’ age, sex, mental capacity, and relationship, as well as the surrounding circumstances and type of conduct to which person A consents.

CAN INCLUDE…

1. fear of life or limb

2. physical threat to you, family, or valuable property

3. threat of arrest CAN be

4. Threat of prosecution or imprisonment

NOT Duress

1. Persuasion

2. Threat by good friend to never speak to you again

3. Threat to job/emploment, under usual circumstances

Neal v. Neal takeaway

Consent obtained by misrepresentation — the failure to disclose the affair nullified plaintiff’s consent. Plaintiff consented only because she believed her husband was not having an affair!

• Her husband intended to commit an act that made contact of an offensive nature, and that act did occur.

An act need not be offensive in the moment — it can be found out to be offensive later on!

McPherson v. McPherson takeaway

Husband NOT liable for giving wife HPV because there was no evidence he was aware he was infected and did not intentionally transmit the virus.

MISSING the intent element of battery.

When do self-defense and defense of others constitute valid affirmative defenses?

1. The △ actually and reasonably believes that it is necessary to injure another to avoid imminent injury (ex: harmful/offensive contact or confinement), and uses proportional force (ie., no more than reasonably necessary under the circumstances)

2. DEADLY force is justified only when the threat is imminent death or serious bodily injury (or, in some states, if you discover an intruder in your dwelling)

How does the duty to retreat affect self-defense and defense of others?

1. You have a duty to retreat without using force if you can do so safely, BUT some states impose a no duty to retreat is you are

   1. in your dwelling;

   2. use only non-deadly force; and/or

   3. have a right to be where you are

When does defense and recapture of property constitute a valid affirmative defense?

You MAY use reasonable force to defend or recapture your property. You may not use excessive force, including force calculated to cause death or serious bodily injury (but NOTE that some SYG laws might alter this rule, allowing deadly force to prevent ex: a “forcible felony” like robbery)

Deadly force is justified only when..

• imminent death or

• serious bodily injury (or, in some states, if you discover an intruder in your dwelling)

• Looks to what the person actually did not the ripple effects

Haeussler v. De Loretto takeaway

People have the right to resort to violence to protect their person and property. One instance in which society says violence is okay.

Katko v. Briney takeaway

Use of PROPORTIONAL force is key! Cannot use deadly force to protect mere property!

• Not unless there is also a trheat to life and limb!

False imprisonment elements

1. A acts

2. Intending to confine B;

3. A’s act causes B to be confined; &

4. B is aware of their confinement

   1. This last one is optional in some jurisdictions!

Confinement

can be accomplished via violence, threats, or other means of restraint. 

• Threats MUST inspire in the threatened person a just fear of injury to person, reputation, or property.

  • When determining whether threats are sufficient to create justified fear, factors for consideration include the parties’ relative size, age, experience, sex, and physical demeanor.

Shopkeeper’s Privilege Elements

1. If D…

   1. Reasonably believes that P stole or attempted to steal property, D may detain P in…

   2. A reasonable manner for

   3. A reasonable time to investigate ownership

What rule about intent does Garratt v. Dailey establish for battery?

A person may be liable for battery if they act knowing with substantial certainty that harmful or offensive contact will result, even if they lack a purpose to harm.

What principle does Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel establish about indirect contact?

Contact with an object closely identified with a person's body (like a plate) can constitute battery under the extended personality doctrine.

What tort rule does Eichenwald v. Rivello demonstrate regarding digital flash assault?

Harmful contact can occur through indirect means (e.g. triggering a seizure via Twitter) if intended to cause harm and causation is established.

What does Beach v. Hancock teach about assault when a threat seems real?

Assault occurs when the plaintiff reasonably believes they are in imminent danger of harmful contact, even if the defendant is bluffing (e.g., unloaded gun).