Select Page

John Marshall Law School, Chicago
Polelle, Michael J.

Torts I
~A tort is a civil wrong other than a breach of contract.~

I. Intentional Torts
A. Intent
· Rule—“In order that an act may be done with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension thereof to a particular person, either the other or a third person, the act must be done for the purpose of causing the contact or apprehension or with knowledge on the part of the actor that such contact or apprehension is substantially certain to be produced.”
· Specific intent: A volitional act with knowledge that the result would occur.
· General intent: Acted with sufficient knowledge such that defendant knew to a substantial certainty that the result would occur.
· Transferred Intent: Allows intent to be transferred between torts and between 2nd or 3rd person.
è Five torts can transfer intent:
1. Assault
2. Battery
3. False Imprisonment
4. Trespass to Property
5. Trespass to Chattels (includes conversion)
1. There is no requirement of injury for there to be an intentional tort. Act must be done for the purpose of causing the contact. Even if they don’t intend those results, the knowledge that those results are substantially certain to occur as a result of their actions.
2. Must prove:
a) Intent to cause contact.
b) Substantial certainty that action/unlawful consequence would result.
3. Cases:
a) Garratt v. Dailey: kid pulled chair out from under old lady & judge found intent of action.
(1) Act must be done to cause contact, or
(2) Knowledge that certain contact would result with substantial certainty.
b) Spivey v. Battagla: Man put shy coworkers head on his shoulder & hugged as a joke & P’s neck was hurt judge entered sum/judgment for D for lack of intent. Where a reasonable person would believe that a particular result was substantially certain to follow, he will be held liable as though he intended it.
c) Ranson v. Kitner: D hunting for wolf & shot P’s dog by mistake & court found that D was still liable even though it was a mistake.
d) Mcguire v. Smith: Insane patient hit P nurse, & court found that the insane are liable for their torts. It makes those responsible for the D more watchful.
e) Talmage v. Smith: transferred intent was found when D hit P boy w/ stick intending to hit another.
4. Act: A voluntary muscular movement doesn’t encompass involuntary movements. Mind must control the action.
5. Causation: A causal connection between the D’s act & the P’s injury.

B. Battery
1. Definition: Battery is the intentional infliction of a harmful or offensive contact.
a) Elements:
(1) Act.
(2) Harmful or offensive conduct.
(3) Causation.
(4) Intent.
b) Intent: Intent must be to make contact, not necessary to intend injury. Playing a joke. If intent is to assault & contact occurs, it is batterry. Substantial certainty.
(1) D is lia

, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
(b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.

§ 18. Battery: Offensive Contact
(1) An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
(a) 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 a contact, and
(b) an offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.
(2) An act which is not done with the intention stated in subsection (1, a) does not make the actor liable to the other for a mere offensive contact with the other’s person although the act involves an unreasonable risk of inflicting it and, therefore, would be negligent or reckless if the risk threatened bodily harm.

1) harmful or offensive contact w/
2) plaintiff’s person