TORTS I
PROFESSOR MOORE
I. DEVELOPMENT OF LIABILITY BASED ON FAULT
1. Tort
i. Definition of tort: a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy (not a breach of contract here)
· “tortus” in Latin = twisted “tort” in French = injury or wrong
2. Purpose of Tort Law:
– To prevent people from taking the law into their own hands
– To deter wrongful conduct
– To encourage socially responsible behavior
– To restore injured parties to their original condition (as well as law can)
II. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PERSON OR PROPERTY
· There are 7 Intentional Torts:
1. Battery
2. Assault
3. False Imprisonment (False Arrestàsub-tort of FI)
4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
5. Trespass to Land
6. Trespass to Chattel
7. Conversion
A. Intent
i. Definition of intent: The desire to bring about a result and the belief that the result is substantially certain to occur
· Can be malicious or well-meaning/helpful
· intent “brought to life” by external factors and acts—that’s what we look at (we’re not mind readers)
· Objective verifiable facts determine intent
· Liable for reasonably foreseen consequences, though the result and damages were not contemplated
· to be liable, you do not need intent to do harmà intent to do act is key
ii. Definition of general intent: setting in motion a chain of events knowing with substantial certainty a result will occur (reasonable that pulling out chair would cause woman to hit ground—chain of events)
· substantial certainty = general intent
iii. Definition of specific intent: Acting with purpose or design to accomplish an act
· It’s called “specific” because you meant for what happened to happen exactly as it did
Sliding Scale of Intent
Negligence
General Intent
Specific Intent
· When dealing with intent, you have specific intent on one side of the spectrum and on the other side you have negligence, and general intent falls somewhere in between the two. This means as the certainty of the consequences decreases you get closer to negligence. The court determines where the line is drawn distinguishing general intent from negligence by evaluating the circumstances and evidence presented in each case.
B. Situations that DO NOT negate intent:
1. Children 5 years-old & older
· are responsible for actions
· younger than this & court says too young to formulate intent
· Garratt v. DaileyàLittle boy pulls out chair from old womanàbroken hip (general intent)
2. Good Faith Mistake
· Public Policy:
– Act with more care even if you act in good faith
– State of mind is not governing factor b/c it opens up lying as a defense (“But it was an accident!” Who can really know someone’s internal thoughts when they acted?)
· Do you
eserving his property.
ii. If the mentally ill person can afford the help/care, then he should be able to afford the damages he causes to victim.
iii. The civil courts do no want to have to debate the mental capacities of the mentally ill person. That would require determining to what degree is a person mentally ill, which is already used as a defense in criminal courts. We don’t allow this defense in civil courts so that victim can have a remedy in at least one of the courts.
iv. An insane person who has abundant wealth shouldn’t be able to continue in unimpaired enjoyment of the comfort his money brings to him while his victim bears the burden of his actions unaided.
· Fault is not necessary for liability
· Has to entertain same intent as a normal person
· Specific intent not needed, simply show that the mentally ill person acted voluntarily.
4. Voluntary Intoxication
· Get drunk/take drugs of own volition—not forced upon you, so you’re liable
C. Doctrine of Transferred Intent
Talmage v. Smithàman intends to commit assault by throwing a stick at Boy #1 to scare him off a roof, but he commits a battery instead when the stick hits and blinds Boy #2
