Torts Outline
Torts in General; P must showà
1. Liability forming conduct- P must show that D was engaged in the kind of conduct for which the law is willing to impose liability.
2. Proximate Cause & DamageàP must show the conduct was a proximate cause of the damage. (legal cause)
3. Affirmative DefensesàD does not deny the allegations, the law gives me a privilege to do it.
Intent- Desire or knowledge to a substantial degree of certainty that –
To the Person- That someone’s rights will be invaded
e.g. Tapping person on the back*
To Property- That the property involved, would be involved
e.g. Having keys to friend’s cabin… sold… still trespassed *
Battery- Intentionally causing harmful or offensive contact with the person.
A. Intent – 4 STATES OF MIND:
1. Desire that there will be harmful contact with P
2. Knowledge (Substantial certainty) that there will be harmful contact with P
3. Desire that there will be offensive contact with P
4. Knowledge (Substantial certainty) that there will be offensive contact with P
B. Harmful – Injury/ damage (facts must be given on exam)
OR
C. Offensive – If not authorized by P & would not have been authorized by the ordinary person.
D. Contact – With the person OR an extension of the person’s body (grabbing plate from hand)
EXCEPTION: P’s knowledge of special sensitivity***
Assault- Intentionally inducing P’s justified apprehension (that harmful or offensive contact will occur).
A. Intent – 2 STATES OF MIND:
1. Desire that there will be apprehension
2. Knowledge (Substantial certainty) that there will be apprehension
B. Cause Apprehension – Inducing (bringing about or causing) justified apprehension. (of harmful or offensive contact)- (ordinary person)
Apprehension = Anticipation with discomfort. Fear always includes apprehension (may state “afraid” on exam)
Justified Apprehension- When P was apprehensive & ordinary per
y of P.
e.g. Ethnically related insults— are outrageous b/c everyone KNOWS that there is special sensitivity to them.
3. Severe Mental Suffering – Some courts require physical manifestation. Other courts do not require this. It is hard to tell which is in the majority.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
4 Defenses to Intentional Invasion to the Personà elements–
1. Attempt to prevent a tort
2. Reasonable Force – Force that appears necessary to the reasonable person.
**Weigh advantages & Disadvantages** [eg. Toy pistol—you defend self against life threatening injury (reasonable belief that toy was real) ]
e.g. Bag of marshmallows… D shoots P… = unreasonable b/c advantages of protecting self with deadly force against disadvantage of possibly taking a human life.
