–Direct Intentional Wrongs —
Battery
an intentional infliction of physical contact causing physical or emotional harm
o Requirement of fault
o Elements
§ Intent
o Actual intent-
· Intent to touch
o Substantial certainty
· Person should foresee that contact would result from behavior
o Children may be held liable for intentional torts
· Garratt v. Dailey
§ Contact
o Some sort of contact must be present for a battery claim
o Transfer of touch- slapping tray, blowing smoke
§ Harm/Offense
o Actual physical harm
o Emotional or mental Harm
· Affront to dignity
· Doctrine of Transferred intent
o Can be liable for intent to hurt one which results in injury to another
· Strict Liability for Battery
o Simple fact that injury occurs = liable
o Courts moving away from this
Dual intent
Used to need intent to contact AND to cause harm. Now some courts only require intent to contact which results in harm.
· Cases
· Van Camp v. McAfoos – no liability w/o fault, action must be intentional, 3yo has She didn’t plead anything. No elements of battery.
· Snyder v. Turk– contact that offends reasonable sense of personal dignity is offensive contact, battery exists. Pushes nurse’s face towards wound.
· Cohen v. Smith– every human of adult years and sound mind has right to determine what done with body, can refuse med for religious reasons, express consent. Didn’t want to be seen naked by man.
· Leichtman– smoke can = battery
· Garratt v. Dailey– children can be held liable for intentional torts, R2T § 29, 13. Pulled chair away. Did he know with substantial certainty that it would happen?
· Polmatier v. Russ– crazy people can form intent; intended to kill father… for weird reasons.
· White v. Muniz– crazies who cannot appreciate effects of actions not liable; dementia- hits nurse- intended to hit but no intention to harm
· Mullins v. Parkview Hospital—Mullins doesn’t want residents during hysterectomy. EMT student intubates- no intent to harm
· A.R.B. v Elkin- sex abuse by father- he even admits it, but no med proof of emotional harm, so nominal damages. Need to be able to price it or prove it.
Assault
Right Protected:
– To be free from the apprehension of a battery
Elements:
· An act intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with PL or an imminent apprehension of such contact
· DOES NOT require PHYSICAL CONTACT!
· apprehension must be normally aroused in the mind of a reasonable person
· invasion of PL’s mental peace
o The apprehension means “awareness” or “expectation,” and must be:
§ Reasonable – what would normally be aroused in the mind of a reasonable person
o Imminent – meaning “no significant delay”. “You’re history”—not assault because it’s later apprehension, not imminent.
o Qualifies as long as a potential battery is apparent. For example, if DF points an unloaded gun at PL, but P doesn’t know the gun is not loaded, the apprehension is there
o Effect of words:
§ Words alone – not assault, unless combined with other acts or circumstances that crea
(not “you can’t leave philly or I’ll fail you)
Damages:
· Trespassory tort, so P can recover even if he sustains no actual harm.
· If P is unaware of the confinement, actual harm must be shown
· e.g. of baby locked in a bank vault for seven days – harms development, etc.
Affirmative defense:
· shopkeeper’s defense – by statute
Cases:
· McCann v. Wal-Mart – Kids accused of shoplifting, the family told to wait until police arrived. The presence of D’s employees was enough for reasonable people to believe they would either be restrained physically if they tried to leave, and/or that the store was claiming lawful authority to confine until the police arrived. No physical restraint= necessary.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Restatement §45
Elements:
1. The defendant acted intentionally or recklessly (reckless is b/t negligence and intent)
2. The conduct was extreme and outrageous
3. The actions of the defendant caused the plaintiff emotional distress
4. The resulting emotional distress was severe (physical/mental effects)
***the IIED must be the intended or primary consequence of D’s conduct, and it can’t just result from the commission of another tort*** NO TOUCHING NECESSARY
“Makes you want to scream “outrageous!”
