Introduction
Some Torts are also crimes
Torts aims at vindicating individual rights and redressing private harms
Aims of Tort Law
· Two systems of thought
o Tort law as moral responsibility or corrective justice
o Tort law based on social policy or good-for-all-of-us view
· Corrective Justice
o Tort law imposes liability on Ds for conduct the law treats as wrong or morally faulty
· Risk Distribution
o Some Ds are good “risk distributors” who should be liable for harm regardless of fault
· Compensation
· Deterrence
o All persons would tend to avoid conduct that would lead to tort liability
· Process values
o Values we attach to the legal system, in particular, the process of deciding disputes
The injured person has the burden of proving damages
· He can recover:
o Lost wages or lost earning capacity
o Medical Expenses
o Pain and suffering endured, including mental and emotional
I. INTENTIONAL TORTS
Establishing a claim
· Elements
o Particular things a P must prove in order to succeed
· Prima Facie Case
o A case “good on the face of it” or at first look
· Burden of Proof
o The P bears the burden of proof on each element.
Torts to Person
Battery
Elements of Battery:
· Unconsented-To Contact
· Harm or Offense
· Intent
**Van Camp v. McAfoos- Battery does not extend to childish acts by children
Unconsented-To Contact
· Extends to include objects intimately associated with the P’s body
· Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc.- P was about to be served lunch when D snatched the plate from P’s hand and shouted that P, a negro, could not be served.
o Ct found that even though P was not touched, it was a battery
o Battery includes knocking and snatching things from a person when done offensively.
· Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Commun., Inc.-P, an anti-smoking advocate, was a guest on D’s radio show. While in the studio, a radio host lit a cigar and blew smoke in P’s face for the purpose of causing physical discomfort, and humiliation.
o Ct found that contact which is offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity is offensive contact.
o Tobacco smoke, “as particulate matter” has the physical properties capable of making contact.
Harm or Offense
· R2T § 19: contact as offensive if it “offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity”
· Not socially acceptable
· Snyder v. Turk- D was a surgeon performing an operation. The D became frustrated with the operation and with the P, a nurse in the operating room. D grabbed P’s shoulder and pulled her face toward the surgical opening saying, “Can’t you see where I’m working? I need long instruments.”
o Ct held that although there was no intent to inflict personal injury, there was an intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact.
· Cohen v. Smith- P went to hospital to deliver her baby. P and her husband told the physician, who informed the hospital staff, that P’s religious belief prohibited her from being seen unclothed by a male. P’s doctor assured her husband that their religious beliefs would be respected. During a C-Section, D, a male nurse, allegedly observed and touched P’s naked body.
o Ct finds that liability for battery emphasized the P’s lack of consent to the touching. Held that the contact offended a reasonable sense of personal dignity.
o The insult is more to be considered than the actual damage
Intent
· R2T § 8A: Intent is used to denote that the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.
· Garratt v. Dailey-D, 5yrs old, moved a chair that P was about to sit down in. He wanted to sit in it and realized P was about to sit in it herself, but was too late in trying to move it back.
o Unless D knew with a substantial certainty that the contact would result, the D has not that intention which is necessary to make him liable under the rule.
o In some states, young children are “conclusively presumed” to be incapable of harmful intent. Age 7 is usually the cut-off point
· Willful or Wanton Conduct- A course of action which shows actual or deliberate intent to harm or which, if the course of action is not intentional, shows an utter i
ity. Within a few days, D started acting erratically. A doctor concluded that she had dementia, loss of memory, impulse control and judgment. P was a caregiver at the facility. When P went to change D’s adult diaper, D struck P on the jaw, injuring her.
§ Ct found for D. The fact that a person may suffer from dementia, does not prevent a finding that she acted intentionally. She must have appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct.
Assault
R2T § 21: An actor is subject to liability to another for assault if he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such contact and the other is thereby put in such imminent apprehension.
Elements of Assault:
· Act with intent
· Apprehension
· Believe there is imminent harmful or offensive contact
· Cullison v. Medley- P invited Sandy Medley, a 16-yr old to his house for a coke. A few hours later, P opened the door to find Sandy with her mother, father, brother, and brother-in-law. P testifies that the father grabbed for his gun and shook the gun at P while threatening to harm P if he didn’t leave Sandy alone. P claims he feared he was about to be shot throughout the episode.
o Ct held that assault is the right to be free from the apprehension of battery. The apprehension must be one that would normally be aroused in the mind of a reasonable person. P’s apprehension of being shot was one, which would normally be arouse in the mind of a reasonable person.
o Assault is complete with the invasion of the P’s mental peace.
o Kline v. Kline- A assault constitutes “a touching of the mind if not the body” Damage which are recoverable for an assault are damages for mental trauma and distress.
