Select Page

John Marshall Law School, Chicago
Lasso, Rogelio A.

Torts Outline
Intentional Torts:
Specific conduct: describe the D’s conduct being evaluated
In order to recover damages, P must prove (by a preponderance of evidence) the elements of a prima facie case and must overcome D’s defenses.
Actual causation is all you need in intentional torts; proximate cause is not needed.
Rule: a person is subject to liability for battery when he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact, and when a harmful contact results.
I.                    PRIMA FACIE CASE (Elements of the cause of action)
A.                 Intent to cause harmful or offensive contact
May be established by showing intent to inflict personal injury or intent to offend. Words + actions determine whether there was intent (the overall circumstances).
1.                  Tests: 
a.                   purposeful desire to harm or offend;
(1)               must be deliberate
(2)               intent to act not enough
b.                  knowledge that act is substantially certain to result in a harmful or offense;
(1)               reasonable person std. (D knew or should have known).
(2)               This form of intent is superimposed on D, regardless of her or his “subjective” intent.
c.                   transferred intent.
(1)               torts can transfer to the same plaintiff or to an “unintended” 3d party.
(2)               if D intends to battery A, but batteries B, D is liable for battery against B.
2.                  Intent of children (capacity)
a.                   No absolute shield b/c of infancy. Liability depends on the ability of individual child to form necessary intent.
3.                  Intent of Mentally disabled
a.                   For policy reasons, a mentally disabled person can be held liable for an intentional tort.
(1)               unless policy reasons don’t apply, or
(2)               The disability just suddenly appeared.
B.                 Harmful or offensive contact;
Rule: to determine whether a contact is offensive, we must determine whether it would be offensive to a reasonable person.
1.                  Touching (contact)
a.                   direct or indirect
2.                  Actual harm or offense
a.                   objective standard – whether the act would be offensive to a reasonable person.
b.                  A contact can be offensive if D knows that P finds the contact offensive and proceeds with it.
C.                 Cause-In-Fact
1.                  factual connection betwee

ances they put the other in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
a.                   D’s words may negate P’s subjective apprehension
4.                  D must have had the APPARENT ability to carry out the threat
5.                  P must be aware of D’s act.
C.                 Cause-in-fact – there must be a factual connection between D’s actions and P’s threat of imminent harm.
D.                 Damages – Can be presumed
Rule: False imprisonment occurs when a person confines another intentionally without lawful privilege and against her consent within a limited area for any appreciable time, however, short.
I.                    PRIMA FACIE CASE
A.                 Intent to confine
1.                  Look to words + acts + circumstances
2.                  Tests: (Purposeful; Substantial certainty; Transferred)
B.                 Actual confinement (actual restraint against P’s will)
1.                  You do not need physical restraint to meet the element of confinement.