Comprehensive Notes on Torts and Intentional Torts

Introduction to Torts

  • Definition of Torts:

    • Torts are defined as wrongs committed against a person or their property that do not arise from a breach of contract.

    • Examples of tortious actions include personal injury, property damage, or harm to reputation.

    • Torts are civil cases, not criminal cases, meaning that the plaintiff (the injured party) must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence, which denotes that the evidence must show it is more likely than not that the claim is valid.

    • The phrase "50% plus a peppercorn" illustrates the standard of proof in tort cases.

Categories of Fault in Torts

  • Levels of Intentionality in Torts:

    1. Intentional Acts:

    • An example is someone deliberately hitting another person (assault).

    1. Recklessness:

    • Defined as behavior that shows an indifference to the potential harm caused; an example is firing a gun in a crowded area, disregarding the likelihood of injury.

    1. Negligence:

    • Involves a failure to exercise reasonable care that results in harm; the focus of most tort cases.

    1. Strict Liability:

    • A category of torts where responsibility for damages is established without proof of fault.

Legal Terminology Related to Torts

  • Tortfeasor: This term refers to the person or entity that commits the tort.

Purpose of Torts

  • Torts primarily serve to:

    • Compensate individuals who have suffered injury or property damage.

    • Provide a means for resolving disputes peacefully, avoiding violence.

Relationship Between Torts and Crimes

  • Torts can overlap with criminal actions; some behaviors can constitute both a crime and a civil tort.

    • Criminal Prosecution: Resulting from a governmental decision to bring forth charges.

    • Civil Complaint: Can occur simultaneously alongside criminal charges.

  • Example: O.J. Simpson was acquitted in a criminal murder trial but later found liable in a civil wrongful death lawsuit, illustrating the difference in standards and implications between civil and criminal cases.

Remedies for Tort Victims

  • If a plaintiff wins a tort case, they may be awarded:

    • Compensatory Damages: Aimed at compensating for actual losses, such as:

    • Medical bills.

    • Lost wages.

    • Property repair or replacement costs.

    • Punitive Damages: Awarded for egregious behavior that warrants punishment.

    • Purpose is to deter the defendant and others from similar actions; it does not compensate the victim.

    • Example: In the case Matthias v. Core Economy Logic, despite minor compensatory damages for bedbug bites, punitive damages were deemed necessary to penalize repeated negligence by a hotel, emphasizing deterrence.

    • Punitive damages are often capped by state statutes, limiting excessive awards and sometimes requiring a portion to be directed to a victim's compensation fund.

Understanding Intentional Torts

  • Intentional Tort Definition: The tortfeasor intends to cause a particular result or acts with substantial certainty that their conduct will cause harm.

Examples of Intentional Torts:

  1. Assault:

    • Involves the instillation of fear of imminent harm. Example: Swinging a fist near someone that causes them to flinch.

  2. Battery:

    • Involves actual physical contact. Example: Hitting someone physically, such as a punch.

  3. False Imprisonment:

    • Unlawful confinement of another person, often with legal exceptions like shoplifting detentions.

  4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:

    • Conduct that is outrageous causing severe emotional distress to another.

  5. Malicious Prosecution:

    • Initiating a wrongful criminal complaint without probable cause.

  6. Defamation:

    • False statements that harm a person's reputation. Includes:

    • Libel: Written defamatory statements.

    • Slander: Spoken defamatory statements.

    • Special standards may apply for professionals' conduct in defamation cases.

Defamation Specifics

  • Defamation cases concerning public figures require proof of "actual malice," meaning the defamatory falsehood was published with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.

  • The standard of proof in such cases is "clear and convincing evidence," which is a higher threshold than the standard of a simple preponderance of the evidence.

  • The First Amendment serves as a protective measure for freedom of speech, complicating defamation claims regarding public figures.

An Example of Defamation

  • The case involving the parents of JonBenét Ramsey who sued a media outlet for suggesting involvement in their child's death illustrates the challenges of proving defamation in regards to public figures.

Opinion as Distinction from Defamation

  • Statements of opinion (e.g., a poor restaurant experience) are generally protected and do not qualify as defamation unless they are presented as facts that harm someone's reputation.