Development of Liability based on Fault
3 possible bases for tort liability
i. Intentional conduct
ii. Negligent conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of causing harm
iii. Conduct that is neither intentional nor negligent, but that subjects the actor to strict liability b/c of public policy
Brown v Kendall p. 6
i. If a person was doing a lawful act and unintentionally hit and hurt someone else then he is NOT liable, unless it can be proved by the other person he was negligent, careless or at some fault
ii. Not liable for negligence
1. Unintentional (unless not taking due care)
2. In the process of doing a lawful act
3. Taking due care
iii. Burden of proof rest on the pltff
iv. Pltff can not recover if he had contributory negligence
v. Separating the dogs was a lawful act
Cohen v Petty, 1933. p. 10
i. A person can not be held negligent when suddenly stricken by an unforeseeable illness which resulted in the accident
ii. Negligence is when a person creates an unreasonable risk
iii. An act is a voluntary muscular contraction
1. In this case there was no act b/c it was involuntary
Spano v Perini Corp., 1969. p. 13
i. A blaster may be held absolutely liable w/o showing negligence or trespass.
ii. Blasting is an inherently dangerous and no matter how much reasonable care you take it will still be dangerous. Therefore, when you engage in an unreasonably dangerous situation you may be held liable
iii. If you know the risks but proceed anyway, then you should take the consequences
iv. Factors
1. Inability to control what happens
2. The risks associated w/ it
3. Possibly where it happens
v. If someone is doing something extraordinary w/ high risks which others have not accepted the risks, then he is liable
Intent
Garratt v Dailey, 1955. p. 17
i. A person may be held liable for battery if he realizes or has knowledge that damages may result even though his intent was not to harm or embarrass
ii. The mere absence of intent to injure the pltff or to play a prank on her, or to embarrass her, or to commit an assault…would not absolve him from liability if he had knowledge that damage may occur
iii. **Alternative meaning of intent: if you know that it is substantially certain to happen.
iv. *** Find answers to Notes p. 20
Spivey v Battaglia, 1972. p. 20
i. Intent is being substantially certain that a particular result will follow, where as the mere knowledge and appreciation of risk is short of this certainty and is therefore unintentional.
ii. It is the intent to act, not the intent to harm that is critical in determining an intentional tort.
Ranson v Kitner, 1889. p.23
i. Shot the dog instead of the wolf
ii. A person is liable for wrongful acts regardless of the fact that they were made in good faith.
iii. He did intend to shot the wolf. the reasonable mistake doesn’t matter.
McGuire v Almy, 1937. P 25
i. An insane person whose act does intentional damage to another is liable for that damage, the same as if he were sane.
ii. The insane lady did intend to hurt the nurse, it doesn’t matter if the person can be responsible.
iii. If the insanity prevented her form entertaining an intent for other liability such as fraud…..????
iv. If they can pay for care, then they can pay for damages
v. POLICY
1. if you don’t have this tort and insane person is not liable, then caretaker won’t take any care to control. By having this liability people taking care of them are going to take care of insane and prevent them from causing the tort.
vi. From notes: voluntary intoxication does not invalidate intent.
Talmage v Smith, 1894. p. 29
i. The right to recover depends on intention to hit someone and to inflict an unwarranted injury upon someone, it doesn’t matter if that someone was not the person intended to receive injury.
ii. Transfer of intent (legal fiction to satisfy intent)
iii. A person shoots to frighten A and the bullet unforeseeably hits a stranger…he is liable.
iv. Transfer of in
dy v Labelle’s, 1983. p 41
i. Moral persuasion is not enough for false imprisonment
ii. Examples of Moral persuasion:
1. if you leave I’m going to embarrass you
2. she stayed b/c she wanted to clear her name
Enright v Groves, 1977. p 43
i. Relates to the defense of False imprisonment:
1. If arrested lawfully (warrant, probable cause, etc) then it is not false arrest.
2. False Arrest = when one is taken into custody by a person who claims to have but does not have proper authority
3. A conviction of the crime is a defense to the later claim of false arrest
Whittaker v Sandford
i. If a person is denied the only reasonable means to leave somewhere then she is being unlawfully imprisoned
Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress
State Rubbish Collectors v Siliznoff
i. When a person intentionally causes extreme mental suffering without privilege, he can be liable even if the intentional conduct fell short of producing some physical injury
ii. Severe emotional distress is regarded as of sufficient importance to require others to refrain from conduct intended to invade it.
Slocum v Food Fair Stores, 1958. p 51
i. Intentional infliction of emotional distress w/nothing more is not enough for cause of action unless the conduct is extreme and outrageous
ii. Mere vulgarities are not enough unless the words were intended to have real meaning or serious effect
iii. ??? Who decides what is extreme and outrageous? Do you use the reasonable person test or is it subjective?
iv. Since the mental distress lead to the heart attack, could she sue for assault??
