Outline for Torts
Drexel University
Professor Furrow
Fall, 2016
Book: Basic Tort Law by Best, Barnes, Kahn-Fogel(4th)
Intentional Torts
Battery
Interest: Bodily integrity-being free from unwanted contact that is harmful or offensive
Elements:
Act requirement (voluntary, external manifestation of his own will; no reflexive\convulsive\epileptic muscular movement)
Intent-desire or substantial certainty()
To cause
An contact that is harmful or offensive (objective test- reasonable sense of dignity)
Act intending to cause an unwanted contact that is harmful or offensive, and damages occur.
Intent to contact
Waters
Procedural History:
Maurice Water, aged 7, filed a complaint for negligent tort, the judge instructed the plaintiff could recover only if the defendant’s act was negligent. The jury found for the plaintiff. The trial judge allowed the defendant’s motion for judgement N.O.V. The plaintiff appealed.
Facts:
The minor defendant placed a firecracker in plaintiff’s shoes and lit it. He had been lighting firecrackers for 10 times.
Rules:
1.An actor is liable for battery if [a] he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the other, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and [b] a harmful contact directly or indirectly results. R2T S13
2. An intent is for the purpose of accomplishing the result or substantially certain such a result will ensue.”
3.Intent to contact is enough, no need to understand the seriousness of his conduct and all the harm, no need to intend to cause the harm that actually happened
3. “the extent of the resulting harm need not be intended, nor even foreseen”
Polmatier
Procedural History:
The plaintiff, Dorothy Polmatier, brought this action against the defendant, Norman Russ for wrongful death. The state referee, exercising the power of the Superior Court, rendered judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.
Facts: A schizophrenic person beat the victim and shot the victim twice.
Issues:
Does a schizophrenic’s conduct meet act requirement?
Does a schizophrenic person intend to battery?
Holding(s):
It is not necessary for a defendant’s reasons and motives for forming his intention to be rational in order for him to have the intent to invade the interests of another. The defendant intended to beat and shoot the victim—committed the battery
Reasoning:
Rules:
1. “The act is an external manifestation of his will,” “reflexive, convulsive or epileptic movements or movements during sleep are not acts.” Although a schizophrenic person could not form a rational choice, he could make a schizophrenic or crazy choice.
2. “an insane person may have an intent to invade the interests of another, even though his reasons and motives may be entirely irrational.”
3. Intent means “the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.” R2dT S8
4.It is not necessary that the precise injury which was done be the one intended.”
Reasoning: The defendant stated that he wanted to make the victim suffer for his bad habits, and he killed the victim for self-defense because he believed the victim was going to kill him. It means he would realize the wrong he had done.
efendant’s motion and entered a verdict in favor of Andrews. The defendant appealed.
Facts:
The defendant tapped the plaintiff(she)’s knee at work, causing her knee to buckle. Peter did not deny he intended to tap her behind the knee, but he alleged that he did not intend to be rude or offensive in tapping.
Reasoning:
Rules
A bodily contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity.
To be offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity, it must be an unwanted contact by the social usages prevalent at the time and places at which it is inflicted.
It must be offensive the ordinary person who is not unduly sensitive to his personal dignity.
The intent test is a subjective test, the test for offensiveness and harmfulness is an objective test. Objective test: to evaluate in terms of societal standard and a reasonable sense of dignity.
An act can be offensive regardless of what the defendant’s personal thought.
White (Dual intent)
Procedural History:
The plaintiff filed against a mentally deficient, Alzheimer’s patient. The trial court gave the jury instruction “ She must have appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct.” The jury in trail court favored the defendant. The plaintiff appealed. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, because it found that most states continue to hold mentally deficient plaintiffs liable for their intentional acts regardless of their ability to understand the offensiveness of their actions. The defendant appealed.
