Select Page

Torts
John Marshall Law School, Chicago
Kandaras, Kenneth

Torts Outline – Kandaras – Spring 2006
What is a Tort?
·
A tort is a civil wrong other than a breach of K bound by the law involving two parties.
Purposes of Tort Law
·
·
·
·
·
Note: only one has to do with victimTo restore injured parties to their original conditionTo encourage socially responsible behaviorTo deter wrongful conductTo provide a peaceful means for adjusting the rights of parties who might otherwise take the law into their own hands
1) DEVELOPMENT OF LIABILITY BASED ON FAULT
2) THE CONCEPT OF DAMAGES
3) LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT
Intent
4) CAUSES OF ACTION BASED ON INTENTIONAL CONDUCT
Battery
·
·
Act by Defendant
Intent
Test
·
·
o
If malice can be proven – punitive damages may be awarded
Motives do not matterRequisite intent is measured by the D having the desireto cause the result or believed that the result was substantially certain to occur
Harmful or Offensive Touching
Assault
·
·
·
·
·
·
Without consent or other privlege. Where Defendant possessed the apparent present ability to carry out the battery That Plaintiff would immediately suffer a battery (i.e., an offensive or harmful contact) Plaintiff to reasonably believe or be aware that Caused By an overt act directed at the Plaintiff,
Act by defendant
Intent
Apprehension
§
Def’s actions do not have to be able to be carried out to constitute an assault on the PL. The PL must suffer only an imminent threat of immediate harm.
·
Test
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
o
o
Western Union v. Hill (“fix your clock”)Old person threatening to punch young kid
Actual ability to cause harm not necessaryPL does not need to be frightenedIf def’s word negate the threat – no assaultDef may set in motion something to cause PL imminent threatThreats to home, property, 3rd person don’t countMust place PL in apprehension of immediate threatDef’s intent measured by substantial certainty testPL must show Def intended to inflict a battery or put that person in apprehension of an immediate battery
·
·
o
Unless words could create an imminent threat (to a blind person)
Words alone not sufficientVolitional movement of some portion
·
·
o
To constitute assault and battery, it is not necessary to touch the PL’s body or even his clothing; knocking or snatching anything from the PL’s hand or touching anything connected with his person, when done in offensive manner, is sufficient.
·
o
Injures, disfigures, impairs, or causes pain to any bodily organ or function
·
o
If it would offend a reasonable person’s sense of personal dignity
·
·
PL need not be aware of touching when it happensHypersensitive PLs – if def doesn’t know he is not liableOffensiveHarmful
Fisher v. Carousel (plate grabber)PL must show that the def inflicted a harmful or offensive touching to his person or something directly extending to his person
·
It must be shown that def did the act with the intent to inflict the harmful or offensive touching to the PL or third person
·
·
o
§
§
Ex: someone falling and they stretch out hands to save themselvesActions where the def has no time to think about the actions being made
Reflex actions
·
Mentally disabled persons still liable for their actions in batteryUnconscious acts do not qualify for batterySome volitional movementDef intends to cause apprehension of harmful or offensive contact and harmful or offensive contact resultsDef intends to cause harmful or offensive contact and does
·
o
o
o
§
§
Reckless conductNegligent conduct
o
§
Worse than reckless, but not as bad as person who definitely had it in mind, or had true intent
o
§
A party is liable for battery when he is substantially certain that his act will result in harmful or offensive touching
·
o
One who has the requisite intent for a tort is responsible for all actions that flow from it
·
o
§
·
·
·
·
Trespass to land/chattelsFalse imprisonmentBatteryAssault
Applicable to:
o
Talmage v. Smith (stick thrower at boys on shed)
§
An indiv who intends an act or consequqnce against one party and instead injures a 3rd party is liable to the third party for injuries sufferedApplies where one indiv intends to inflict harm on another but instead in

e while committing a lawful act is not liable for injuries caused to another party as a result of the act.
·
If a party is doing something that is not necessary, they can be held liable for the damages they might cause, unless they use extraordinary care
·
·
·
·
·
o
A party not liable in negligence for an injury caused by unforeseeable and involuntary actions
·
o
If actual physical invasion of prop happens (rocks thrown onto prop) then liab is in hands of def.
o
An indiv who has sustained property damage caused by an inherently risky activity (ultra hazardous activity) may recover w/out proving negligence – strict liability applied
o
Def must prove they are not negligent
Spano v. Perini
Cohen v. Petty (guy passes out driving)Match the precaution to the risk – not liable if you act carefullyBroad base of negligence evolves – stay within the boundaries of what the law says to do, and then if you happen to injure another party they must prove that you were acting negligently (not using ordinary care that would be used for that action you were performing).Responsibility to prove a cause of action against a party is placed on the plaintiff to show that defendant wasn’t using ordinary care while doing something lawful (not something necessary), not on the defendant that they weren’t using ordinary care.However, if the process is necessary, then they cannot be held liable if they use ordinary care.
Kendall hits Brown in the eye w/ stick when trying to separate 2 dogs fighting
Brown v. Kendall
Man is shot on accident at a training exercise
Weaver v. Ward
I lift a stick in self defense and hit the innocent man in back of me
AnonymousTrespass in caseAction in trespass