Torts I
Professor Field, Fall 2012
I. Intentional Torts
Intent
Must Prove either:
i. Purpose or desire to accomplish a particular result –OR–
ii. Knowledge that the result is substantially certain to occur
Transferred Intent
i. Intent can transfer from person to person
1. Ex/ A tries to hit B. A hits C instead. Battery transfers to C.
ii. Intent can transfer from tort to tort
1. Ex/ assault to battery; battery to assault. Transfers from: Assault, Battery, False Imprisonment, Trespass to Chattels, and Trespass to Land.
Battery
Elements
i. The ∆ ACTED
ii. With intent to cause harmful or offensive contact with another –and—
1. Garratt v. Dailey: Brian Dailey, a 5yo, pulled the chair out from under a visitor, Garratt. Did not have the requisite intent to cause a harmful contact.
2. Shaw v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco: Shaw argued that Tobacco Company should be liable for cancer he contracted via second hand smoke. The court determined the tobacco company did not have the intent required for battery. They don’t manufacture w/ intent to cause a battery.
iii. Harmful or offensive contact actually resulted
Limits of Offensive Contact
i. Contact with the person is not necessary
ii. Contact element IS satisfied by contact with items that are so connected with the body as to be customarily regarded as part of the other’s person
1. Policy: this protects against unwanted contact to personal dignity
2. Carousel: Case where black man is in the buffet line and belligerent restaurant worker comes up and slaps the plate out of the black man’s hand. It was held that contact is not necessary. Contact with the plate was enough for battery.
Assault
Elements
i. The ∆ ACTED
ii. The act was done with the intent to cause apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact with another;
iii. The ∆ has the apparent, present ability to inflict the contact; -And-
iv. Apprehension of harmful or offensive contact actually results
Policy
i. Freedom from apprehension
ii. Deter retaliation
Holloway v. Wachovia: Wachovia bank agent tries to repo car from Holloway. Points gun at car. Establishes transferred intent from the driver to the girl in the backseat. Knew to a substantial certainty she would touch the kid in front seat (battery).
False Imprisonment
Elements
i. The defendant acts intending to confine the other or a third person within boundaries fixed by the actor;
ii. The ∆’s act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement of the other; -and-
iii. The other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it.
Note
i. Length of time does not matter. Can be only for a few seconds.
ii. The π must ask or try to leave unless they have reason not to (like a gun pointed at them). If you do not try to escape then your false imprisonment appears to be just speculative.
1. Ex/ the case where the nurse was brought into the office and surrounded by the two men. They kept following her and trying to get her to talk to them. Everything looked like false imprisonment except she never tried to escape so we don’t know if she was actually imprisoned.
Policy
i. False imprisonment is the tort that protects an individual’s right to move freely as they please
Shopkeeper’s Privilege
i. Store owner has a privilege to detain someone in suspicion of shoplifting if 3 elements are met:
1. Reasonable suspicion
2. Reasonable detention (manner of detention)
3. Reaonalbe time
Trespass to Land (Classical Approach)
Elements
i. One is liable for trespass irrespective of harm, if he intentionally
1. Enters land in possession of another, or causes a thing or third person to do so, -or-
2. Remains on the land, -or-
3. Fails to remove from the land a thing that he is under a duty to remove
Mistake of Ownership
i. M of O is not a defense.
ii. This does not negate the intent.
iii. All that matters is that you intended to be on the property irrespective of whether you thought it was yours. Hence, if you set just one foot onto another’s land thinking it was yours you can be found liable for trespass.
Policy
i. Protects the exclusive possession of property
ii. Nuisance: affects use and enjoyment of your land
iii. Trespass: affects your right to exclude use of your land.
iv. land extends way up and way down.
Trespass to Land (Modern/ Particles)
Elements/ Plaintiff Must Show:
i. An invasion affecting an interest in the exclusive possession of his property;
ii. An intentional doing of the act which results in the invasion;
vi. The inconvenience and expense caused to the other.
Airplane fuel case.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)
Elements
i. The conduct must be intentional or reckless
1. Intentional: purpose, desire; knew to substantial certainty
2. Reckless: knew to high probability that emotional distress would occur
ii. The conduct must be extreme and outrageous
1. Conduct needs to be so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable.
2. Should make an ordinary member of community shout OUTRAGEOUS!
3. Factors
a. ∆ is in a real apparent position of power or authority over plaintiff. (ex/ psychologist case calls him cod fish)
b. The ∆ knows that eth π is particularly susceptible to emotional distress (ex/ psychologist case).
iii. There must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress –and-
iv. The emotional distress must be severe
1. the law intervenes only where the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable person could expect to endure it.
2. Evidence that shows ED:
a. Can’t carry on normal activities
b. Therapy, counseling
c. Hospitalization
Policy
i. To protect one from severe psychological injury resulting from extreme and outrageous conduct.
ii. Conversely, courts are hard pressed to allow recovery for IIED to bar people from taking advantage of the court system. You have to prove the conduct was outrageous and that you actually suffered emotional distress—there are no handouts.
1. Caldor Inc. v. Bowden: P claimed IIED because his employer took extreme measures to prove that he stole something from the. He didn’t go to therapy but once, and continued to carry on his daily activities. Did not win his IIED case despite the conduct being extreme in degree and outrageous in conduct because he didn’t prove that he suffered severe enough damages.
2. Figueredo-Torres v. Nickels: Psychologist was having an affair with his client’s wife. He coaxed his client into believing that he should leave his wife and called his client a codfish. The court held Torres liable for IIED.
