Torts Outline

 
TORTS PROFESSOR FIELD FALL 2013 (A+)
Money, damages, injunction – legal remedies in a civil suit
Injunction – court order to do or not to do something
Tort system compensates the victim for whatever the wrong was.
Common law comes from appellate court decisions.
Tort law is mostly a matter of state law, but there are instances involving federal cases.
BATTERY: Defendant acted; with the intent to cause harmful or offensive contact with another AND harmful or offensive contact actually resulted.
Think about only the cause of action you’re analyzing. EXAM stay focused on question, do not consider other causes of action.
Restatement of torts – rewording of common law stuff. No force of law. (Persuasive precedent)
Intent – intent to cause the result
Subjective requirement – whenever intent is involved, we are getting in the mind of a particular subject and see that the defendant actually knew his action would cause the result, not should or ought to have known. Must know to a substantial certainty. Must have known is different than should’ve known. If the jury finds the defendant must have known even though D declines, Jury is perfectly free to decide he must have known.
Elements of BATTERY
1)      The defendant acted;
2)      The act was done with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with another; AND
Harmful could cause harm
Harm is the result of the contact
Nominal damages – could be a dollar, but you win
3)      Harmful or offensive contact actually resulted
Intent
      Purpose or desire to accomplish a particular result OR
      Knowledge that the result is substantially certain to occur
Intent can transfer from person to person, and from assault to battery and battery to assault.
Knowing that it is possible isn’t enough, must know with a substantial certainty
Transferred intent – intent to cause contact with person A but actually contacts B, still intent necessary for battery.
 
ASSAULT
1)      Assault – defendant acted;
2)      The act done with the intent to cause apprehension (anticipation, doesn’t have to be fear) of imminent harmful or offensive contact with another;
3)      The defendant must have the apparent, present ability to inflict the contact; -AND-
4)      Apprehension of harmful or offensive contact actually results.
Two ways to prove intent: 1) purpose or desire to cause result 2) knowledge that the result is substantially certain to occur.
Side note: if you change the words of the way the rule is written, keep the meaning exactly the same. If you change the words often, you are likely to make a mistake. For exam purpose for cases – you don’t need to remember the names of cases, as longs as he knows what he means.
Transferred intent for assault. A intends to cause apprehension with person B but actually causes it with person C.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT: ELEMENTS,
1)      He acts intending to confine the other or a third person within boundaries fixed by the actor
2)      His act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement of the other, and
3)      The other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it.
Prima facie case & defenses : Plaintiff must prove facts that are legally sufficient to establish a claim.
            The plaintiff must satisfy all elements of the claim
            Affirmative defense: Defendant must prove facts that are legally sufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s claim
            The defendant must satisfy all elements of defense.
If plaintiff can establish a prima facie case – that does not mean he wins, we have to see if defendant can establish an affirmative defense. If defense can’t raise an affirmative defense, plaintiff wins. (flow chart on slide)
On test: if question asks can plaintiff establish a prima facie case, don’t worry about the defense. Focus on question.
IF defendant negates at least one element of the prima facie case AND/OR prove an affirmative defense. If plaintiff gets to 50/50 certainty on one of the elements, the defense wins.
For exam purposes, look at it from both sides, and predict who should win it. Don’t advocate for one side. Play the role of the judge.
If Plaintiff can negate at least one element of all affirmative defenses.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT (shopkeeper’s privilege)
No liability for false imprisonment if the affirmative defense of shopkeeper’s privilege applies
o   Reasonable suspicion
o   Detained in a reasonable manner
o   Detained for a reasonable time
TRESSPASS TO LAND
One is subject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected interest of the other, if he intentionally
1.      Enters land in the possession of the other, 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 which he is under a duty to remove.
Real Property – anything permanently fixed on the land
Sound is not a trespass to land, it is a nuisance.
Need intent and trespassory invasion.
Certified question happens when a federal court in certain circumstances can apply state law to a state cause of action. To apply state law the federal judge has to figure out what the state law