TORTS OUTLINE
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
INTENTIONAL TORTS
a. Establishing a claim
i. Elements
1. Particular things a P must prove in order to succeed
b. Prima Facie Case
i. A case “good on the face of it” or at first look
c. Burden of Proof
i. The P bears the burden of proof on each element.
TORTS TO PERSON
I. INTENT
a. 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.
b. R2T §870: One who intentionally causes injury to another is subject to liability to the other for the actual harm incurred, if his conduct is culpable and not justifiable. This liability may be imposed despite the fact that the actor’s conduct does not come within one of the traditional categories of tort liability.
c. 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.
d. 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.
e. In some states, young children are “conclusively presumed” to be incapable of harmful intent. Age 7 is usually the cut-off point
f. 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 indifference to or conscious disregard for a person’s own safety or the safety or property of others.
g. Intent requirement met by either:
i. A purpose to cause the tortuous contact
ii. Substantial certainty that such a contact will result
h. Where a reasonable man would believe that a particular result was substantially certain to follow, he will be held in the eyes of the law as though he has intended it. (Spivey v. Battaglia—Spivey worked with Battaglia at fruit company, Battaglia gave Spivey an unsolicited hug which resulted in Spivey suffering from sharp pain in the back of her neck and ear; and sharp pains into the base of her skull and as a result she was paralyzed on the left side of her face and mouth. Court held no reasonable man would be able to foresee the unusual results that happened and believe that they were substantially certain to follow.)
i. A person is liable for the damages caused by their mistake whether they were acting in good faith or not. (Ranson v. Kitner—Kitner hunting for wolves and mistook Ranson
sane person may have an intent to invade the interests of another, even though his reasons and motives for forming that intention may be entirely irrational. Thus he may be capable of having the intent to do harm to another that is necessary for torts such as battery or the intent to interfere with chattels necessary for conversion. On the other hand his mental condition may deprive him of the capacity to have the necessary intent, just as it may prevent the existence of an intent to deceive and the knowledge that his words are false required for intentional deceit, or the “malice” or wrongful purpose required for malicious prosecution. If that is the case, there is no tort and no liability.
s. Cts in this country say in the broadest terms that an insane person is liable for his torts.
t. In order to be liable the insane person must have been capable of entertaining that same intent of a normal person and must have entertained it in fact.
i. McGuire v. Almy—McGuire is an at home nurse that was taking 24 hr care of Almy who was mentall insane and at time violent but when McGuire was hired she was told that Almy was “a mental case and was in good physical condition.” During one of Almy’s spells, she broke apart all the furniture in her room and hit McGuire on the head with one of the pieces of wood. Ct found Almy capable of intent to cause damage to the plaintiff. She knew she was hitting somebody so she is liable.
II. BATTERY
a. R2T § 13. Battery: Harmful Contact
