Study Notes on Intentional Torts

INTENTIONAL TORTS

I. Introduction and Intent

A. Tort Basics

  • Tort Defined: A tort is a civil wrong or injury not arising out of contract.

  • Torts vs. Criminal Law:
      - Criminal law results in imprisonment; torts result in a requirement to pay damages.

  • Torts vs. Contracts:
      - A contract is a voluntary obligation; torts involve duties imposed by law (e.g., duty to drive safely).

B. Major Ways to Understand Tort Law

  1. Deterrence    - Objective: To prevent torts from happening.      - Strategies:        a) Threat of liability.        b) Risk of failing to recover damages.

  2. Individualized Justice (Wrongs-Based Ideas)    - Focuses on justice between plaintiff and defendant.

  3. Compensation    - Older view relates to loss spreading; modern majority view emphasizes deterrence and justice.

C. Major Types of Torts (ranked worst to least severe)

  1. Intentional Torts: Conduct intended to cause harm.

  2. Negligence: Largest category (~85% of tort law).

  3. Strict Liability: Liability without fault.

D. Intentional Torts

  • Types include:
      1. Battery   2. Assault   3. False Imprisonment   4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress   5. Property Torts:      - a) Trespass to Land      - b) Trespass to Chattels      - c) Conversion   6. Defenses:      - a) Consent      - b) Self-Defense

E. Strict Liability

  1. Animals:    - a) Trespassing Animals    - b) Wild Animals (liability for harm caused)    - c) Domestic Animals (vicious tendencies).

  2. Abnormally Dangerous Activities.

F. Negligence

  1. Duty: Legal obligation to act reasonably.

  2. Breach: Failure to meet the standard of care.

  3. Causation:    - a) Did the breach lead to damage?    - b) Includes cause in fact and proximate cause.

  4. Defenses:    - a) Comparative fault.    - b) Assumption of risk.

G. Vicarious Liability

  • Liability for acts of another under certain relationships, primarily employer-employee relationships.

II. Intentional Torts to Persons

A. Intent

  1. Understanding Intent:
       - Subjective Analysis:      - a) Purpose: Desired goal of the act.      - b) Substantial Certainty: Actions that show knowledge of likely harm.

  2. Single vs. Dual Intent:
       - Single Intent: Contact only.
       - Dual Intent: Contact and intent to cause harm.    - Case Example: Wagner v. State (mental illness and battery).

B. Battery

  1. Definition: Intentional infliction of harmful contact with another.

  2. Elements:
       a) Intent (purpose or substantial certainty).    b) Touching (includes indirect contact).    c) Harmful or Offensive Nature (protects both physical integrity and dignity).

  3. Key Cases:
       - Garratt v. Dailey: Intent established by substantial certainty in a negligence context.

  4. Awareness: Not necessary for battery but crucial for assault.

C. Assault

  1. Elements:
       a) Intentional act to cause harmful or offensive contact or imminent apprehension.    b) Victim must experience such apprehension.

  2. Dual Intent Tort:
       - Must show intent for both contact and harm.

  3. Analysis of Assault vs Battery:    - They may occur together but do not have to.

D. False Imprisonment

  1. Definition: Intentional and unjustified restraint of movement.

  2. Elements:
       - a) Intent (purpose or substantial certainty).    - b) Restraint on movement.    - c) Must be unjustified.

  3. Legal Considerations:
       - Determining lawful restraint (police, consent).

III. Additional Cases and Application

Application Examples:
A. Hypothetical Cases:

  1. Brenda and Clarisse Example (Battery and Assault analysis clarifying intention and contact).

  2. False Imprisonment case: (Dean and Samantha) –was restraint justified?

  3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Cases:
       - Analyze cases based on factual contexts and emotional distress definitions.

B. Intent in Property Torts

  1. Mistaken Identity Example: Ranson v. Kitner (dog and conversion).

  2. Mental Illness Defense: Does not absolve intent; significant legal reasoning presented.

  3. Transferred Intent: Explained via Talmage v. Smith (unintentional impacts).

IV. Recovery and Damages

A. Compensatory vs. Punitive Damages

  1. Compensatory Damages:

  • Types include economic loss (actual expenditures such as medical bills/lost wages)

  • Non-economic losses (pain and suffering).

  1. Punitive Damages: Focus on punishment and deterrent effects of tortious conduct; can be awarded on a higher burden of proof.

B. Statutes of Limitations and Repose

  1. SOL: After injury, a limited time to file suit (varies by case).

  2. SOR: Limits liability based on time after the cause of action arises.

C. Vicarious Liability and Joint Tortfeasors

  1. Analysis of liability standards based on actions and fault levels among multiple tortfeasors, and corresponding defenses.

D. Duty, standard, breach, causation (Cause-in-fact and proximate cause), and damages:

  - Evaluate in light of the Joint Tortfeasors principles and applicable legal precedents (both classical and contemporary analyses).

V. Conclusion

  • Comprehensive analysis and evaluation of intentional torts and negligence liabilities helps understand applications of the law and its adjudication.

  • Encourage understanding of interpersonal relationships as impacts on tortious responsibilities, especially in case law interpretations that shape precedent.