SIMONS_TORTS _FALL_2013
Major purposes of tort Law:
1. To provide a peaceful means for adjusting the rights of parties who might otherwise “take the law into their own hands”;
2. To deter wrongful conduct;
3. To encourage socially responsible behavior;
4. To restore injured parties to their original condition, insofar as the law can do this, by compensating them for their injury; and
5. To vindicate individual rights of redress
Introduction
Tort – A civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, for which the law provides a remedy
I. Liability Based on Fault
A. Writ of Trespass – redress for a criminal action for direct and Forcible injuries (i.e intentional torts)
B. Writ of Trespass on the Case – redress for actions where there was no writ, case by case analysis. Developed into modern actions of Negligence, Conversion, Nuisance, Deceit.
Hulle v. Orynge (4)
One may be liable, despite acting lawfully with no intention to cause injury
Action is based on intent to act, not intent to cause injury.
Weaver v. Ward (5)
A P’s contributory negligence may mitigate or preclude D’s liability even if injury is direct.
Brown v. Kendall (7)
Even when the injury is directly caused by D, he is not liable without fault (intent/negligence)
Cohen v. Petty (10)
Negligence requires a knowledge or anticipation that an act or conduct my result in injury.
Spano v. Perini (13)
Overturned Booth holding that blasting actions required a showing of direct trespass.
Here, blasting = absolute liability (because it is “ultra hazardous”)
Intentional Torts
Battery, Assault, False Imprisonment, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm, Trespass to Land, Trespass to Chattels, Conversion
Intent: a person meant to commit the act (Specific Intent), a reasonable person would possess knowledge of substantial certainty the consequence of the action would occur, or a third party was injured by the act (Transferred Intent).
*Mentally disabled persons may be held responsible for their intentional torts as long as the plaintiff can prove that they formed the requisite intent. (Restatement Second of Torts) (McGuire v. Almy page 25).
*When a child commits an intentional tort — Even without knowledge of the child's purpose or motive, if the child knew with substantial certainty that harm would occur as a result of the action, the child will be held liable. (Garratt v. Daily)
A. Battery: An unconsented to touching that causes harm (in most states the touching must be meant to cause harm or be offensive, HOWEVER, in New York it is just an unconsented to touching which causes harm). Wallace v. Rosen
Harmful or Offensive Contact:
Subjective question that the contact has to be offensive enough (humiliating, socially unacceptable behavior)
*Special Sensitivity: if the batterer knew that victim is especially sensitive, batterer will be liable for injuries even if a reasonable person would not find it offensive.
Extends to Personal Effects:
A battery may be committed not only by a contact with the plaintiff's body but also by a contact with his clothing, an object he is holding, or anything else that is so closely identified with his body that contact with it is as offensive as contact with the body would be.
Damages:
An individual can recover damages for any pain, suffering, embarrassment, even in the absence of physical injury when a defendant is found liable in torts for a battery.
B. Assault
Imminent apprehension of an unconsented to touching .
Requirements for Imminent Harm:
– Plaintiff must have a reasonable apprehension that the defendant will carry out the threat
– Defendant must have the present ability to commit threatened harm.
C. False imprisonment
Direct, intentional restraint by one person of the physical liberty of another without adequate legal justification .
Requirements for False Imprisonment:
– Victim must know he is being confined (Parvi v. Kingston page 43)
– The imprisoned did not give consent – another person cannot give consent for the plaintiff’s confinement (Big Town Nursing v. Newman page 41 son gave consent not the plaintiff)
D. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm
Intentional or reckless infliction, by extreme and outrageous conduct, or severe emotional or mental distress, even in the absence of physical harm
Requirements for Infliction of Emotional Harm:
– Conduct must be intentional (Taylor v. Vallelunga page 65: defendant could not have intended to frighten the plaintiff when he severely beat her father since the defendant did not even know she was there)
– Conduct must be outrageous
– There must be causal connection between the causal conduct and emotional distress
– The emotional distress must be severe (create physical symptoms, etc).
*Severe Emotional Distress – suffering that attains a level that no reasonable person could be expected to endure.
E. Trespass to Land
Even if the defendant made a mistake, (thought he was on his own land or thought he was entitled to be there) it is still trespassing.
Requirements for Trespass to Land:
– invasion affected an interest in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff’s property
– the invasion was an intentional act
– it was reasonably foreseeable that the act of the defendant would result in an invasion of plaintiff’s property
– there is some measure of damage to the plaintiff’s land- the land need not be harmed.
F. Trespass to Chattels
A person has a right to own property and make an action against one who interferes with his use or possession of that good.
G. Conversion
An intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chatt
ccupied dwelling of a building may use deadly physical force if he/she reasonably believes the use of such force to be necessary to prevent a burglary or an attempt of burglary.
D. Recovery of Property
– General Business Law: a business owner may restrain a person he/she reasonably believes to be stealing but only for a reasonable amount of time, restraint must be in a reasonable manner.
– § 35.25 of the Penal Code: A person can use physical force (not deadly) to prevent or terminate what he/she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the commission of larceny or criminal mischief to a property other than a premises. (Hogden v. Hubbard page 144)
E. Necessity/Discipline/Justification
– §35.10 of the Penal Code: Use of physical force: The Use of Physical Force upon another which would otherwise constitute an offense is justified if:
o One may invade the interests of another to prevent great harm to self or others.
o Action must reasonably be necessary to protect public interest, even if conduct does not achieve its desired goal
o A parent, guardian, or teacher is using physical force to discipline
o A warden or other prison official is trying to maintain order
o A person is operating a form of public transportation and needs to exert physical force to maintain order
o A person has the reasonable belief that the other person is about to commit suicide or inflict serious physical injury to himself/herself.
o A physician trying to administer treatment he believes is reasonably necessary to the patient’s well-being if (a) the treatment is administered with the consent of the patient or a guardian or (b) the treatment is administered in an emergency.
– -§35.30 of the Penal Code: “A police officer or peace officer, in the course of effecting or attempting to arrest, or preventing the escape from custody of a person whom he or she reasonably believes to be have committed an offense may use physical force to effect the arrest”
– In Surocco v. Geary page 120, the plaintiff did not recover for the defendant blowing up his home because the defendant reasonable believed that blowing up the plaintiff’s property was his only option to prevent a severe fire from overcoming vast amounts of property in the city.
– Justification- A D may be justified, when his conduct may not fall under traditional privilege categories.
