INTENTIONAL TORTS
Brown v. Kendall, 60 Mass. (6 Cush.) 292. (1850)
Trespass means any forcible immediate harm to person or property
Judge instructed jury: If beating the dogs was necessary he only had to use ordinary care; if it was permissible but not necessary then he needed to use extraordinary care. (Improper Instruction)
If it was a lawful act then the burden of proof is on the Plaintiff, if not then on the Defendant
Burden of Proof:
1. Burden of Production: Must provide the necessary evidence
2. Burden of Convincing: Must persuade their argument is true
Unintentional means did not mean to whereas Involuntary means that he had no control; The D’s actions are Unintentional not Involuntary
Cannot be held responsible for involuntary acts
If the actions of the D were unavoidable and free from blame then there is no fault
If proper, prudent and cautious care to ensure safety is used then there is no fault
If proper care to protect to ensure safety for the exigency of the action there is no fault
A new trial is ordered b/c the previous jury was given improper instruction. The judge decides that the Plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof; the new jury must apply the facts to the law and see if the Plaintiff can meet that burden.
Cohen v. Petty, 62 App. D.C.187, 65 F .2d 820 (1933)
If a person is falls ill, and it is not because of anything they’ve done and it is unavoidable, and they cannot control their body then they cannot be held liable.
Did the D do something else careless to cause the accident? Was it avoidable?
Ct. finds for D. There can be no negligence when it is out of the D’s hands.
Spano v. Perini Corp., 25 N.Y.2d 11 (1969)
Int. Ct. uses Booth precedent to say that debris needs to come to their property to create damage in order to recover. Rule: If there is physical invasion, then it is trespass to land and no fault is required. If no invasion, then it is a nuisance which requires fault.
Ct uses best-cost avoider approach to find for the P and have D internalize the costs
Garratt v. Dailey (1955)
P, Garratt, is an arthritic woman who suffered an injury from falling due to the D, a child, Dailey, who pulled her chair away before she sat down.
Lower Ct. found on a Preponderance of evidence that there was no intent so they dismissed the battery charged. P appealed.
App. Ct. remands for clarification on the following reasoning:
1. Minors are liable for forceful torts just like any other; must commit wrongful act to be liable.
2. There is no consent or privilege given by the P.
3. For a person to intentionally inflict bodily contact they must the purpose of their action must be to cause this contact or knowledge that it will cause this contact. (Restatement 13)
4. If it is proven that the chair was moved during the action of the P sitting then there is intent to harm. (P used this theory which the trial ct. said she failed to prove)
5. Actor must realize that his act will cause the harmful bodily action; intention to perform the act is not enough. (Restatement)
6. Does the D have this knowledge???
The new trial Ct. says that the D had proper knowledge and found for the P in the amt. of $11,000.00 ; Remand says that he has enough knowledge to have substantial certainty that she would fall
Spivey v. Battaglia (1972)
Brought suit for negligence and assault & battery. The D asked for a summary judgment on grounds that D said that it was A&B as a matter of law, which had a 2 yr statue of limitations (had run out). Court affirmed on the basis of McDonald v. Ford, and P appealed.
Is this A&B or negligence?
Ct. finds that this is negligence and uses the following reasoning:
1. Intent in A&B is seen as if a reasonable person would see the outcome as substantially certain.
2. The line b/w A&B and negligence is where someone sees an outcome as a foreseeable risk (negligence) or as a substantial certainty (A&B)
3. The Ct. deems that no reasonable man could infer that this “hug” would have the outcome that it did, so there is no A&B
4. It was however a foreseeable risk, so he is liable for negligence.
· Negligence is conditional. It varies by case, and that is why McDonald’s rule is not applicable here.
· Plaintiff is trying to show that the “hug” is negligence, not A&B So she is trying to prove that there was no KWSC or intent to cause offensive or harmful contact.
Ranson v. Kitner
31 Ill. App. 241 (1889)
Intentional tort b/c they intended the act of killing the animal; even though they didn’t intend to kill a dog. Good faith does not matter.
***Distinction b/w mistake and accident: mistake means that you made a misperception of the facts and accident is when the causal sequence goes awry***
McGuire v. Almy
297 Mass. 323, 8 N.E.2d 760 (1937)
B/c Directed Verdict the jury must look at light most favorable to Plaintiff
***If harmful contact is intended, delusion or other mental factors do not change that fact; ct does not look into the mental state (Different than criminal law ***
By imposing liability those responsible for the insane may be more watchful (Best Cost Avoidance Model)
If you are wealthy and acting through others then you should compensate injured (Compensation Model)
Litigation over mental state would be too costly
Talmage v. Smith
D appeals b/c they do not like the jury instructions.
The instructions were: If the D intended to hit the other boy and did not use excessive force then there can be no recovery.If the D intended to hit EITHER other boy and did not use excessive force then there can be no recovery. If the D intended to hit EITHER other boy and DID use excessive force then there CAN be recovery.
He is allowed to frighten the boys (i.e. commit an ASSAULT) b/c it is a defense of property, but by trying to hurt them he is no longer using reasonable force.
***Ct says he was liable b/c of transferred intent: if you commit a tort intended for one person and actually commit it against another there is still intent; this transfers from tort to tort as well (only 5 original)***
BATTERY
Intentional harmful or offensive contact
· Includes KWSC
· Results can be indirect or direct
Cole v. Turner
The least amt of touching of another in anger is a battery.
Protects dignity and honor.
Prevents arguments from becoming physical.
Also protects against harmless and unavoidable touching.
Anger includes an action deemed offensive
Wallace v. Rosen
Teacher accidently knocked down mother. Wallace sued for battery and lost. She then appealed on the grounds that the c
g ordinance.
· P sued for false imprisonment and won; D appealed.
· Can someone recover for false arrest even if they are convicted of a violation after arrest? Yes
· Ct affirmed b/c:
1. Conviction of the crime which one is specifically arrested is a complete defense for false arrest
2. Mrs. Enright was not arrested for the dog ordinance, but rather for not producing her drivers license which is not a crime
Whittaker v. Sanford
· D appealed saying there was an error in jury inst.; lost appeal, and appealed again
· D’s claim was that he did not confine her, but merely did not give her means to go ashore.
· Husband and boat owner continually defer responsibility
· Lower ct did give jury instructions that the restraint must be physical and not simply moral; they still found for the P
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Intentional conduct that is extreme and outrageous in nature and causes severe distress
State Rubbish Collectors Assn. v. Siliznoff
· Made him promise to sign the debt, not sign there; allowed him to leave, so NOT false imprisonment. No imminent threat of force, future threat
· IIED protects mental tranquility whereas in the past the ct was concerned solely w/ one’s dignity. This changes things b/c it is much harder to prove mental tranquility.
· Dignity can be assessed by the common man b/c it is measured by a shared social norm, where an expert must evaluate mental tranquility.
Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of FL
· Claimed that malicious behavior added stress to her preexisting heart condition.
· Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim; no outrageous conduct that caused severe emotional distress. No reasonable jury can find this outrageous
Harris v. Jones
· Marks an end to using loss of dignity as a measure of IIED; now relies only on mental tranquility. A distinct move from judging the actions of the Defendant to now judging the mental consequences (severity) of the Plaintiff. *
· The P was verbally abused by the D, his supervisor, at GM plant for a period of 5 months b/c he mimicked his stutter which caused him to become nervous and exacerbated the condition. Other people in the past had mimicked him as well.
· P sued Jones and GM for IIED and the jury awarded $3,000 in actual and $15,000 in punitive damages. The Int. App. Ct. reversed. P Appealed.
· Did evidence support the claim that Harris’ emotional distress was severe? No
· Ct affirmed int. App. Decision b/c:
1. One who, w/o privilege, int. inflicts severe emotional distress on another is liable for he emotional distress and bodily harm it may cause (Restatement 46)
“There is liability for conduct exceeding all bounds usually tolerated by
