TORTS
Tort: a tort is civil wrong other than a breach of contract for which the law provides a remedy.
· Imposes duties on a person to act in a manner that will not injure other persons
· In a civil wrong the aggrieved party is some entity that has legal recognition (person, corporations, etc.)
· Developed by the courts through the opinions of judges
· Remedy: damages or restitution, wrongdoer provides redress for cause of action
Development of Liability is Based on Fault
1. Intent
2. Negligent (Unreasonable Behavior) (Reasonable behavior)
3. Strict Liability
Weaver v. Ward: (Soldiers of same army, accidental shooting of P). A D might not be liable for a purely accidental injury occurring entirely without his fault.
Brown v. Kendall: (While separating fighting dogs, injured P). If a D acted unreasonably then liable.
Cohen v. Petty: (D got sick in car and crashed). A D is not negligent for injuries caused by a non-volitional illness not previously known. ∏ has burden of proof (duty to prove Δ is liable).
Spano v. Perini Corp.: (Blasting). Engaging in a hazardous activity results in absolute liability for damages caused by the activity.
Intentional Torts
Manifestations of Intent
1. Desire, Motivation, or Objective
OR
2. Knowledge with Substantial Certainty
Note: Before there is any intentional tort there must be intent. Something must happen in regard to the actor in their mental processes that lead to the intentional tort
· Shrink someone and put in the mind of the actor to look for motivation, objective, desire and/or knowledge of substantial certainty
Garratt v. Daily: (5 year old pulling chair from underneath the P, held liable for injuries caused). Manifestations of intent = motivation, desire, objective to cause harm and/or knowledge w/ substantial certainty that action would occur.
· Manifestation of intent is difficult to determine in a child. The child must have cognitive ability to know that his actions would cause harm or has the motivation to cause harm.
Spivey v. Battaglia: (Bad hug was not battery but could be negligence) D did not act with the requisite intent because he could not have “K w/ S C” that hug would cause paralysis.
Ranson v. Kitner: (Appellant shot dog by mistake while hunting). Generally a mistake as to the identity does not negate intent. There is still motivation, desire and objective to kill a thing and knowledge or substantial certainty that pulling the trigger would cause harm to the thing.
McGuire v. Almy: (Insane person struck P and causes injury). Even when there is no cognitive ability public policy is inclined to find an insane person liable for damages.
An insane person must be capable of entertaining the intent and must have entertained it in fact.
Note: Voluntary intoxication does not negate intent. Inclined to impose liability even if the D does not manifest requisite intent.
Talmage v. Smith: (D threw stick intended for one boy but hit another boy instead).
Transferred intent: The motivation and knowledge or substantial certainty was transferred to the actual victim. You can transfer intent: same tort à dif. Victim. /OR dif. Tort àsame victim/ OR Dbl transfer. CANT TRANSFER INTENT OF INT. INFLICTION of EMO. DIST.
Battery
Elements of Battery
(1) (a) Intent to cause harmful or offensive contact OR
(b) Intent to cause fear or apprehension of H/O contact
AND
(2) The H/O contact occurs
§ Harmful – anything that results in harm
§ Offensive – hurting personal dignity or the integrity of the person
§ Contact – what would normally be regarded as being part of one’s person that is so intimately connected to the person to be regarded as part of the person.
Note:
– Protects integrity of body
– Awareness not necessary for recovery
– If contact is intended, and H/O occurs, Δ liable no matter of true intention (practical joke)
– Protects body and those things closely connected. (Food tray – Fisher)
– If Δ knows of a particular sensitivity of the ∏, Δ can held to higher standard.
– Contact can be indirect (throwing rock.)
-Doesn’t matter if battery is beneficial to ∏ (goes in for boob job, but w/o consent Dr. does lipo)
Wallace v. Rosen
Tapping on shoulder not battery.
àTEST: what would be offensive to an ordinary to an ordinary person NOT unduly sensitive.
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc.: (Plate snatching – no actual physical injury). A contact is offensive if it is damaging to a reasonable sense of dignity.
Assault
Elements of Assault
(1) (a) Intent to cause harmful or offensive contact OR
(b) Intent to cause fear or apprehension of H/O conduct
AND
(2) Fear or Apprehension of H/O results
-There Must be a present apparent ability the battery will occur (Standing in same room, not separated by jail)
-Must be imminent (cannot be a conditional threat. “I’ll get u later”)
-∏ must be aware (not unconscious)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill: (If Hill would come and allow D to love and pet her, he would fix her clock).
Solicitation by a man to a woman for intercourse unaccompanied by an assault is not actionable. Insulting words used when not accompanied by an assault are not the subject of an action for damages
-There Must be a present apparent ability the battery will occur (Standing in same room, not separated by jail)
False Imprisonment
Elements of False Imprisonment
1. Intent to confine ∏, AND
2. Actual confinement of ∏ against their will, AND
3. ∏ was aware of confinement
d a technical assault.
Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida: (Vulgar language by employee to customer).
Level of severity of comments.
§ The unwarranted intrusion must be calculated to cause “severe emotional distress” to a person of ordinary sensibilities, in the absence of special knowledge or notice
§ Mere insults are not enough, neither are annoyances, threats, petty oppressions or other trivialities.
-Common carries may be held to higher standard, lower threshold (more on p.54)
Harris v. Jones: (Insults b/c of stuttering problem)
A ∏s sensitivities may be a factor in deeming Ds conduct extreme and outrageous.
Case sheds light on element 2.
Stating that the insult/action should be considered within the scope of a particular cases circumstance. And that is should be up to the jury to decide on the degree of the matter.
In this case, the distress suffered was not severe enough, court said this type of humor was normal in factory.
-What’s ok b/w sailors may not be b/w a lady and a sailor.
Taylor v. Vallelunga: (bystander emotional distress). Transferred intent does not work in intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The Δ needs the requisite state of mind for the ∏ who suffered the emotional distress.
∏ can recover if Δ does something to a 3rd party(ex. kill) w/ intention to I.E.D. to ∏.
RECKLESS COMPLETE DISREGUARD OF RISK
No intent, but thru recklessness:
àà ∏ can recover as a bystander in I.I.ED, IF Δ knew ∏ was present; AND, ∏ suffered bodily harm as a result of distress OR ∏s directs harmful conduct at a family member.
Trespass to Land
Elements to Trespass to Land
1. Intent to enter, or to cause someone or something to enter, ∏’s land; AND
2. Actual entry onto land results.
-Protects right to “exclusive possession of land”
-Intent – only requires the intent to put oneself or thing on the land of another regardless if they mistakenly believe it is theirs
-No physical damage to the land is required, but only nominal damages when there is no damage.
Point would be to try title; and ejectment if trespasser wont leave. Exception Bradley v. Smelting
-Can lie if you exceed scope of permission (Anchor post)
-Reasonable mistake is no defense
