Torts Outline

Torts : Fall 04
Hernandez
 
Liability based on fault
Definition of tort-A civil wrong other than a breach of K for which the law provides a remedy.
            a. It’s a way to adjust the right of the parties to prevent them from taking the law into       their own hands.
            b. Encourages socially responsible behavior
            c. Restores injured party to “original” condition
3 broad categories of torts:
            a. Intentional Torts
            b. Negligence
            c. Strict liability
 
Fault:
A ∆ is liable for all his actions causing injury unless the injury was caused utterly w/out his fault
An individual who during the commission of a lawful act uses ordinary care is not liable for injuries caused to another party as a result of his act
If the injury to the P was unavoidable the ∆ is not liable
A party is not liable in negligence for injury caused by his unforeseen and involuntary actions (car crashed when D driver unexpectedly fainted)
An individual who has sustained property damage caused by blasting may recover for his damages without showing of negligence by the D (Spano- blasting case)
An individual may recover in strict liability for damages sustained as a result of a ∆’s ultrahazardous activities
 
Intentional Torts:
Intent:
desire, motive, objective or knowledge of substantial certainty
Substantial certainty: an act is done when the actor is substantially certain that a certain consequence would follow
Π always has the burden of proof
 
Cases
Garratt v Dailey: little boy w/ chair:
Court used knowledge w/substantial certainty because they could not find motive, desire, and objective especially because the kid was so young. He tried to replace the chair as Garratt was in the act of sitting and this shows that he knew she would fall and have injury. If Dailey had planned to move the chair with friends as a practical joke then his intent could have been called deliberate or purposeful.
A party is liable for battery when he is substantially certain that his act will result in harmful or offensive touching
Intent is not necessarily to cause harm, just to cause the contact
Spivey v Battaglia: hug caused paralysis
For intentional torts: A party who acts w/ knowledge and substantial certainty that a particular result will follow is liable for all results flowing from his act, regardless of how unforeseeable or unreasonable 
For negligence: ∆ is only liable for those harms that are reasonably foreseeable
Employers usually not liable for torts to employees under the worker’s compensation immunity shield. However, some state statutes provide that employers are liable for intentional torts
Ranson v Kitner: shot dog thought was a wolf    mistake
Good faith mistake is not a defense to intentional torts where the ∆ intended the consequences of his act
Good Faith or Mistake does not negate intent or liability.
Even though a mistake may be reasonable, it still does not negate intent (ex. homeowner had contract w/ oil company to fill up oil tank, they filled it up and it over flowed b/c new owner had hired someone else- liable even though mistake was reasonable).
McGuire v Almy: insane woman hit caretaker w/ a chair    insane people
An insane individual who is capable of forming the intent to strike another and acts upon that intent is liable to that individual for the injuries suffered
An insane person can be held liable for an intentional tort, even though you can’t prove intent. This is for public policy:
            1. person who commits wrongs should bear the burden (but then D always loses)
2. encourages people responsible for insane person to really take care of them 
3. don’t like the fact that people can say they are insane and not be intentional      
o       You need intent for an intentional tort, unless the tortfeasor is insane
o       For an intentional tort, you need intent, except for insane persons, who may be liable for intentional torts without knowing whether or not they are insane. However, the caregiver taking care of the insane person cannot sue the insane person.
o       Voluntary intoxication does not negate intent. Can still be held liable.
o       Those responsible for taking care of the insane person may be held liable for their actions for negligent supervision
o       Insanity may prevent specific types of intent, such as deceit- requires Π to prove that Δ know that he was not telling the truth.
 
Talmage v Smith: stick hit wrong kid    transferred intent
An individual who intends an act or consequence against one party and instead injures a third party is liable to the third party for the injuries suffered
Transferred intent between persons: if ∆ intends to harm A but instead harms B, the intent is said to be transferred to the harm befalling the actual victim
Transferred intent between torts: intent to do one tort transfers to the tort that occurs à A intends to scare B whose back is towards A, throws a punch towards B and hits B…A is liable to B for battery even though he did not intend to hit B or cause offensive touching
If a D intents to commit a trespass action: either battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels, and ends up committing any of the others listed, he is liable.
 
 
Battery:
—    Intent to cause harmful or offensive contact OR
—