Torts Outline

 
Brian Sheppard
Torts
Spring 2015
Seton Hall Law
(Grade received: A+)
 
Intentional Torts (Requires intent or actual knowledge)
-Intent varies based on the different tort
1. Battery
2. Assault
3. False Imprisonment
4. Intentional infliction of emotional distress
5. Trespass to property
 
Intent (Spectrum) (D)
Intent to act (low)—intent to contact (medium)—Intent to cause specific contact—specific intent to cause harm (high)
Requirement:-Plaintiff friendly (low)—Defendant friendly (high)
Accidental possibility increases with lower level of intent.
Intent to contact is most accepted.
 
Intent Proof – 2 ways-
1. (Subjective substantial certainty test)- Knew harmful or offensive contact would result (Garratt v. Dailey) OR
2. Acted with purpose of causing contact even if didn't know conduct would have that effect. (Wagner v. State).
 
Battery
Elements:
1. harmful or offensive contact
2. Intent to make contact
-Act
-Contact
-Harmful/offensive
-Harmful- Injured- subjective injury
 v.
-Offensive- objective- offends reasonable sense of dignity
-Intent
-Intent to contact is most accepted. But on spectrum (D)
 
Harmful/Offensive
-Harmful contact- bodily harm- bruises or broken bones
-Offensive contact- objective- must violate social stds. of acceptable touching
-Acts' offensiveness can depend on the circumstances (Relationship b/w them, setting where touching took place).
 
Intent
Determined by: mental state at time of acting.
-P must rely on circumstantial evidence to establish that D acted with requisite intent. 
 
Burden of production and persuasion is on P to prove tort committed.
-Must prove beyond a preponderance of evidence (more likely than not that allegations are true).
-Certainty with elements such as intent is not required for P to prevail, must just be probable.
 
Battery: OFFENSIVE- Intent to contact required- not harm
Paul v. Holbrook (2nd massage is offensive contact (objected to 1st); vicarious liability to employer for actions within the scope of employment)
-Holbrook massaged Paul on 2 occasions and immediately pulled away and told Holbrook to leave. Previously harassed by asking her to wear revealing clothing and suggesting they have sex.
 
Doctrine of extended personality (D on allowing)
-Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel-Snatching plate can support contact requirement for battery
-Courts are hesitant to extend too far if not close to body.
-can still say indirect touching (plate hit hand)–if court doesn't allow extended personality—other indirect exs.- shooting; hit with pipe.
 
Battery doesn't require physical contact- (exs. Exposure to radiation; smoke blown in face)
-Even smoke has small particulate matter. (Courts willing to find contact to get villain).
 
Eggshell skull rule
Vosburg v. Putney (Liable for all damages flowing from wrongful act)
-12 yr old kicks 14 yr old and injures leg with pre-existing injury. Intent not to cause the level of harm that resulted but irrelevant.
 
H: Intent for harm isn't prerequisite to battery and P liable for all damages flowing from wrongful act, whether or not foreseeable. P takes D as he finds him- foreseeability of extend of harm irrelevant.
 
Courts are reluctant to allow eggshell skull rule to emotional damages.
PP: Much more difficult to show damages there and less consistent to show compared to physical damages
 
Intent to Contact; Single Nexus of Fact; Plead in Alternative
Cole v. Hibberd (Battery-intent to contact; single nexus of fact so no negligence, SJ-SOL bars)
-Kicked in lower back and trying to sue for negligence b/c battery SOL barred (2 yrs v. 1 yr).
Can plead multiple theories (plead in alternative) of relief but only 1 will be allowed (Single nexus of fact)
-Here kick so either intentional (battery) or accidental (negligence)
H: Intent to cause contact enough for battery so no negligence.
-Assault would be allowed (Separate nexus of fact) b/c different type of injury (mental)
 
Primary basis for SOL is to ensure validity of evidence.
PP: Look to heart of claim- SOL shouldn't influence.
 
**(S)Why intentional tort usually better than negligence:
-Punitive damages are allowed for intentional tort but not for negligence
-Courts more likely to view intentional torts as outside of employees' scope of employment thereby blocking P's ability to hold employer vicariously liable (Under doctrine of respondent superior)
-Liability insurance policies exclude coverage of liabilities arising out of intentional torts
-Sovereign immunity protects employees from injuries within gov't employment. (When within scope of employment)
-Workplace injuries usually barred from tort of negligence and must file workers' compensation claim but typically exclude intentional torts.  (So- many prefer intentional torts classification to allow recovery).
 
Not Intent to Harm—INTENT TO CONTACT
Wagner v. State (Mentally handicapped not immunized from battery claims- understanding consequences not prerequisite for battery)
-mentally handicapped man (in custody of state employee) attacked Wagner in K-Mart.
If Battery then dismissed- if negligence then can recover
-State can't be sued for batteries committed by gov't workers (immune).
H: Intent to contact and harmful contact actually made so battery and state immune.
 
PP to immunity: some gov't actions are low reward and high risk (not fiscally attractive enough for private party)- justification for different standard (immunity).
-Some states immunize mentally handicapped from battery charges.
Limits to children being liable for battery b/c of their physical weakness to inflict harm- although mental capacity may be same for those handicapped, their threat of physical harm is more likely.
PP of Intent to contact, not harm: Protects bodily integrity while recognizing the practical reality of inevitable contacts. (Thus objective std. for offensive or harmful).
 
Knowledge to Substantial Certainty: (Quasi Intent)-subjective standard. 
Garratt v. Dailey: (Battery- substantial certainty that contact would result)
-Nephew pulled chair away but tried to put back. 
H: No intent to cause contact b/c tried to put back (unsuccessfully). Liable b/c substantial certainty that contact would result.
-Should have known gives rise to negligence, not intentional battery. (Must actually know contact would result).
-Using objective test would remove intent aspect of intentional tort. 
 
(D)Courts split on statistical knowledge on battery showing outright or if should be sued as circumstantial evidence for battery.
-(Some say it is implausible to infer purpose to cause harmful touching from mere statistical knowledge that it will eventually result to someone).
-Not Suffici