intentional tort falshcards

Intentional Interference with Person or Property

Intent

I. Garratt v. Dailey (child defendant pulled chair out of the way of adult plaintiff, defendant

states he couldn’t put chair back in time, Court remanded to find proof of substantial

certainty)

a. Intent: aware of intended actions

b. Substantial intent: aware with substantial certainty that something is likely to

occur by your actions

II. Wagner v. State (lady plaintiff was attacked by a mentally disabled patient that was

accompanied by state employees. She filed for negligence claims, the state argued they

were battery claims. State won) | UT: ‘single intent’

a. Second Restatement of Torts defining the elements of battery:

1. Intent required is intent of contact

2. Contact must be harmful or offensive, but the actor does not need to intend

any harm.

b. Actor does not need to “appreciate” that his act is harmful or offensive for his

contact to constitute battery.

III. Ranson v. Kitner(hunter shot and killed a dog thinking it was a wolf. Argued for good faith.

The court found the shooter liable because there was still intent for harm)

a. A mistake does not eliminate intent

IV. McGuire v. Almy (plaintiff nurse is hit by mentally ill patient defendant during a violent

episode. Court finds that the intent to strike was there defendant is liable)

a. Mental illness is not a defense against intent in civil actions

b. The insane person must have been able to entertain the same intent and must have

entertained it. | Consider public policy surrounding this

V. Talmage v. Smith (man defendant threw a stick at boys on his roof, aiming at one in the

front of the group. Stick hits the boy plaintiff and he loses his vision. The court found that

man defendant had intent to hit somebody and to inflict an unwarranted injury)

a. Transferred intent: when a person intends to do something to someone else but

unintentionally does it to another

● The original tort type can turn into another tort for the other person which

creates liability for the tort that actually occurs

b. Applies to the 5 intentional Torts: Torts (Battery, Assault, False Imprisonment,

Trespass to Land, Trespass to Chattels) [Also includes Conversion in some

jurisdictions]

Battery

● Defining a Battery: Violent or offensive touching, force one’s way in a rude inordinate

manner, touching another in anger

I. Cole v. Turner (defines the difference between battery – rude offensive touching, & non-

battery – accidental brushing or non-offensive touching)

a. Elements: (1) intent to touch, (2) harmful/offensive contact, & (3) actual contact

II. Wallace v. Rosen (defendant teacher touched plaintiff lady during a fire drill to get her to

keep moving from the top of the stairwell. Plaintiff lady fell. Court found there was not

battery b/c some touching was inevitable and the type of touch was not out of the normal

or ordinary in that situation) no substantial knowledge she would fall

III. Fisher v. Carousel Motor, Inc. (defendant worker snatched plate out of defendant man’s

hand and shouted obscenities. Plaintiff man was not physically touched or injured, but was

embarrassed. Through appeal SC of TX found that the intentional snatching was offensive

invasion of person) extends to items plaintiff has in possession

a. Personal indignity is the essence of an action for battery

b. touching/grabbing items in a person’s possession = battery

Assault

● EVERY BATTERY DOES NOT INCLUDE AN ASSAULT (Why is this in my notes)

● Defining Assault: intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an

imminent harmful or offensive contact

○ Elements: (1) Intent (by defendant) (2) Fear or apprehension (by the plaintiff) (3)

of imminent harmful/offensive contact (4) present ability to carry out the harm

● Threat alone is not sufficient, imminent threat needed.

I. I de S et ux. v. W de S (defendant man was striking door with ax, plaintiff woman stuck

head out to tell him to stop and defendant man swung at her but did not hit her. Court

defined assault)

II. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill (defendant worker reached over the counter as if he

was going to grab the plaintiff woman. Court found that plaintiff woman had reason to

believe he could reach her, and therefore constituted assault; present ability to carry out

assault)

False Imprisonment

● Elements of false imprisonment: (1) defendant intended to confine (2) plaintiff did not

consent (3) Without adequate legal justification to execute that restraint (4) Plaintiff must

be aware of the confinement

● No injury or offense need to be proved

● Intentional tort

● No clothes = adequate restraint

● Force, threat of force, duress = adequate restraint

I. Town Nursing Home, Inc. v. Newman (plaintiff elderly man was put in defendant nursing

home by nephew, with instructions to let him go freely whenever he wanted. Plaintiff

elderly wasn’t allowed to leave, tried to escape but was brought back multiple times. Court

found defendant was holding plaintiff against his will)

a. Escape is not considered a reasonable exit alternative as a defense to False

Imprisonment

II. Parvi v. Kingston (Defendant police drive plaintiff man to golf course to sober up, he leaves

golf course and gets hit by car. Court found false imprisonment in the car because plaintiff

man asked to be let out. His inability to recall the details was irrelevant)

1. The defendant intended to confine him. 2. The plaintiff was conscious of the

confinement. 3. the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement and 4. The

confinement was not otherwise privileged.

a. You must be aware of being falsely imprisoned at the time that you are being held.

b. Officials are not liable if they are properly following procedures.

III. Hardy v. La Belle’s Distrib. Co. (plaintiff worker was brought into the office of defendant

storeowner to discuss accusation of shoplifting. Plaintiff worker alleged false

imprisonment but court found there was nothing stopping her from leaving)

a. Absence of fear and involuntariness takes away from false imprisonment claim

b. Pressure to stay is not adequate

c. Shopkeeper’s privilege: allows keeper to detain someone they suspect for theft for

reasonable period of time as long as they have reasonable belief that theft occurred.

IV. Enright v. Groves (defendant police officer arrested plaintiff woman after she refused to

provide her license after citing her for leash ordinance. Police said the plaintiff woman

“could show her license or go to jail.” Court found arrest to be unlawful)

a. Proper legal authority absent

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

● Hardest tort to prove - not always recognized

● Insults, swearing, slurs do not qualify

● Elements: (1) Intentional/reckless conduct (2) Extreme/outrageous conduct (3) causal

connection between wrongful conduct & emotional distress (4) emotional distress must be

severe

I. Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida (defendant employee made a rude comment to

plaintiff, plaintiff claimed that caused her to have a heart attack)

a. Conduct needs to exceed the boundaries of society - severe unless aware of hyper

sensitivity

II. Harris v. Jones – elements detailed and defined (defendant boss made fun of plaintiff

employee’s stutter which made speech worse and caused mental distress) did not have

severe emotional distress

a. Intentional conduct, the conduct was extreme and outrageous, causal connection

between the conduct and the distress and the distress is severe

III. Taylor v. Vallelunga (plaintiff witnessed the defendants beat her father, defendants were

not aware that plaintiff was hidden there. Court found no IIED because there was no

intent to inflict emotional distress)

a. There has to be intent or transferred intent

Trespass to Land

● Elements: physical invasion of real property of another

I. Dougherty v. Stepp (defendant was found trespassing but no harm was done, so it was

nominal damages)

a. “Every unauthorized and therefore unlawful entry, into the close of another, is a

trespass”

b. People have the right to exclusive property ownership and to protect their privacy

c. Trespass is intentional even if the person believes the land belongs to them

II. Herrin v. Sutherland (defendant shot birds over petitioner’s property and passed through

airspace above property - court found airspace low enough was considered part of property)

a. Restatement (second) of torts sec 159: if it enters into immediate reaches of the

airspace next to the land and interferes substantially with the others use and

enjoyment of the land = trespass

III. Rogers v. Bd. of Rd. Comm'rs (plaintiff man allowed defendant man to leave poles on

property, but defendant failed to clear them all and plaintiff hit left over pole and died.

Court found for plaintiff because defendant was past expiration of agreement)

a. Continuing trespass: overstaying welcome, failure to remove or leave after

consent or privileges are terminated

Trespass to Chattels

● Damages: repair value of the chattel, money for the time you were deprived, damages for

you or anyone connected to the chattel, emotional distress

● Nominal, compensatory, punitive

I. Glidden v. Szybiak (dog bit plaintiff child and defendant dog owner argued to be free of

liability bc there was trespass on the dog - the court found for plaintiff child because there

was no damage done to dog, dog not taken away) harmless intermeddling

a. There must be intentional intermeddling with some sort of chattel property AND

causes harm

b. Can also occur when you deprive the owner of their chattel

II. Compuserve Inc. v. Cyber Promotions (defendant continued to send spam emails despite

plaintiff requesting they stop. Court found for plaintiff bc 1. They were losing capacity 2.

Bothering customers)

a. Elements (1) intention, (2) dispossession, damage or substantial interference, & (3)

plaintiff suffered some harm because of action

Conversion

● The long term deprivation, permanent deprivation or total destruction of another's chattel

● Damages: replacement costs at market value

I. Pearson v. Dodd (defendant made copies of plaintiff’s papers but put copies back, court

found plaintiff was not deprived of the use or their information)

Privileges

● Privileges only apply to intentional torts

Consent

I. O’Brien v. Cunard S.S. Co. (boat passenger was vaccinated by surgeon. Court did not find

any evidence that she objected to vaccine, and that her conduct availed herself to it)

a. Example of implicit consent - actions that show consent

II. Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals (Bronco hit Bengal after play out of frustration. Choosing

to participate in inherently violent or physical activity is not automatic consent)

a. There are restrictions and sanctions (rules and customs) in place to avoid this

b. Actions above and beyond what is expected is not consensual.

III. Mohr v. Williams (defendant doctor operated on left ear when he only had consent to

operate on right ear. Court found (battery) against doctor because he only was authorized

to operate on right ear)

a. Consent for something does not transfer to another.

b. Medical providers can only act without consent when: (1) patient unable to give

consent, (2) risk of serious harm if treatment is delayed to get consent, (3) a

reasonable person would consent, & (4) the Dr has no reason to believe the patient

would refuse treatment

IV. De May v. Roberts (pregnant plaintiff brought suit against stranger that doctor brought

because pregnant plaintiff only gave consent to doctors being present. Consent voided due

to deceit.)

a. New or changing facts changes consent

Self-Defense

1. Existence of Privilege: anyone has the privilege to use reasonable force to defend himself

against a threatened battery on the part of another

a. Proved by defendant

2. Retaliation: privilege is one of defense against threatened battery, not one of retaliation –

once the threat is gone, so is the defense for self-defense

3. Reasonable Belief: privilege exists when the defendant reasonably believe that the force is

necessary

a. Threat does not need to exist

b. Necessity is not required

4. Provocation: insults, verbal threats or bad language do not justify self-defense

a. Can help limit punitive damages

b. If words accompany threat of physical violence, then it may be privileged

5. Amount of Force: the privilege is limited to the use of force that is or reasonably appears

to be necessary for protection against a threatened battery

a. different considerations of the characteristics of the parties involved

6. Use of deadly force: to justify deadly force, the defendant must have a reasonable

apprehension of loss of life or great bodily injury

a. [Common Law: “Retreating to the wall”] v. [statutes: stand your ground]

b. extending to your place of work?

7. Injury to third party: privilege of self defense is carried over and the defendant is held not

to be liable to third party in the absence of some type of negligence towards him

a. Privilege carries over unless negligent

Defense of Others

● Nature of Privilege: defense similar to self-defense is recognized for the defense of a 3rd

party using reasonable force

● Reasonable Mistake: courts differ, either: (1) Intervenor steps into the shoes of the person

they are defending & are privileged only when that person would have been privileged, or

(2) Intervenor is privileged to defend even when he is mistaken in his belief that the

intervention is necessary

○ Restatement (second) of Torts sec.76 (1965)

Defense of Property

I. Katko v. Briney (defendant home owner set up a shotgun to shoot trespassers. Plaintiff

shot, and court found that the defense was egregious)

a. Force must be reasonable - can't use force calculated to cause severe bodily harm

or death to defend property

Recovery of Property

● When a property owner knows or has reason to believe their property was fraudulently

taken, a person may detain a suspect for a reasonable time at the vicinity where the items

were allegedly taken, to investigate whether an item was taken

● Fresh pursuit: limited to prompt discovery of the dispossession

○ No lapse of time allowed

○ Demand required prior to force

○ Force must be reasonable

○ Resistance is justification for use of additional force

I. Bonkowski v. Arlan’s Dept. Store (lady plaintiff was thought to have been stealing so

defendant security dumped bag outside of store but didn’t find anything. Lady plaintiff

sued for false imprisonment but court found reasonable belief was enough, the search was

reasonable)

Necessity

I. Surocco v. Gary (family forced to stop taking items out of their home so the home could

be destroyed to prevent fire. Court found it was a of public necessity)

a. “Private rights of the individual yield to the considerations of general convenience

and the interests of society) - necessity must be clear. Can’t be for convenience

b. Ruling against public interest would have negative ex ante affect

c. No liability, so no money damages allowed

II. Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. Co. (defendant ship docked themself to dock during storm

instead of leaving, damaged dock. Court found that defendant ship was protecting their

own interests v. the public)

a. Private necessity: protecting own interests and interfering with others (liable)

b. Acts of God

Authority of Law

● “Police officers, military personnel, prison officials, regulatory inspectors, or officials at

mental health facilities may act under authority of law”

● Arrest with warrant

○ Ministerial, officer only liable if they act against the warrant

○ Invalid orders offer no protection

■ Fair on its face exemption

○ Mistakes not protected

● Arrest without warrant

○ Either officer or citizen (in presence or in fresh pursuit)

■ Citizen far more restricted

■ Officer allowed if he has information that affords reasonable thinking

felony is being committed

● Past breeches = officer must have been present

● Excessive force not permitted

Discipline

● Necessity of some orderly discipline gives persons who have the control of others the

privilege of exercising reasonable force and restrained upon them

○ Parents, Teachers, Military

● Limited Privileges to those who are temporary responsible for others

Justification

I. Sindle v. New York City Transit Authority (plaintiff passenger brought suit against bus

driver who wouldn’t let him off bus for false imprisonment. Court found necessary because

defendant driver had a duty of care and protection of the passengers and the city)

a. Risk of public weighed heavier than plaintiff interests