Torts
Rogers
Fall 2013
1. Torts
a. Purposes of Tort Law
Corrective justice
Deterrence of risky or wrongful behavior
Determining when Compensation P for loss is needed
Loss distribution / insurance
Minimizing admin costs
b. Intentional Torts- intent to invade legally protected interests of another (intent to cause harm). Liable for all harm that stems directly from action, proved in evidentiary battle (medical testimony, p evidence of harms sustained).
i. Battery- protects P’s from bodily harm.
1. PFC- 1) D acts 2) with intent 3) to cause 4) harmful or offensive contact 5) with victim or 3rd party 6) and contact occurs.
2. Contact can be with item closely associated with the body.
3. Liable for all injuries that stem from incident, eggshell skull rule
4. RST 13- An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if:
A)he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
B) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.
(a) RST 8A-The word “intent” is used … to denote that the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.
1. Specific intent- actor desires consequences of act. Evil motive/malice, intending the contact but not injury (Vosburg) (hard to find D.’s mental thoughts)
2. General intent- consequences of acts or knowledge or substantially certain to result, but by product of act. (much easier to prove)Acting despite being substianally certain harm will result.
3. Transferred intent- RST 13(a), if the object hits a third person, the intent that was used for a is given to b.
4. Garret V. Dailey- To be liable for battery, one must act intentionally with knowledge to a substantial certainty that one’s acts will cause a harmful or offensive contact. (Child removed chair lady was previously sitting in, TC said his intent or purpose was not to hurt so not liable, P appealed, AC said to be liable substantial knowledge of certainty that harm would occur was needed.) Ct. said Gen, Intent, why??????????
5. Vosburg v. Putney- In an action to recover for assault and battery, the plaintiff must show that either the intent behind the defendant’s actions is unlawful or the defendant’s conduct itself is unlawful. Established eggshell skull rule as D. was liable for all harm that came from act-
1. Eggshell skull rule- take vic. How they are, you are liable for all harm even if due to pre-existing injuries.
(b) RST 18- § 18 Battery: Offensive Contact
1. (1) An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
1. (a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
2. (b) an offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.
2. (2) An act which is not done with the intention stated in Subsection (1, a) does not make the actor liable to the other for a mere offensive contact with the other’s person although the act involves an unreasonable risk of inflicting it and, therefore, would be negligent or reckless if the risk threatened bodily harm.
(c) RST 19- A bodily contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of dignity.
1. Not responsible for overly offend people unless actor knows the person is easily offended.
ii. Trespass- protects against having property harmed, exclusive use and enjoyment of property, clarifies property boundaries
1. PFC- 1) intentional 2) and unauthorized 3) entry 4)onto another’s property 5) by self or object under control.
2. RSt 158- One is subject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected intrest of another if he intentionally
(a) Enters land in the possession of the other, or cuases a thing or third party to do so, or
(b) Remains on the land, or
(c) Fails to remove from the land a thing which he is under a duty to remove.
3. Does not apply to negligently entering land.
4. Harm need not be substantial, aka har
ntrol over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel.
(b) 2) To determine seriousness of interference, following factors important
1. Extent and duration of actors control
2. Actors intent to assert a right inconsistent with other party
3. Actors good faith
4. Extent and duration of resulting interference with owners claim
5. Harm done to chattel
6. Inconvenience and expense incurred by owner
4. Thyroff v Nationwide- Plaintiff may bring claim for conversion where def. intentionally asserts dominion over p’s property, including intangible electronic property. Conversion did not previously apply to intangible prop, Merger doc (RST 242) allowed intangible times such as stock to be viewed as physical property rights. Now intangible prop can easily be turned into or merged with physical prop. CT. basically says no need to have physical prop for all intangible prop.
v. Trespass to Chattels- protects private property
1. PFC- 1) intentional 2)interference 3) with P’s use or possession of 4) P’s chattel (property other than land) 5) causing actual damage or interference
2. RST 217- TTC is intentionally… dispossessing another of the chattel, or using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another.
3. RST 218 (Liability)- One who commits a trespass to a chattel is subject to liability to the possessor of the chattel if, but only if:
(a) He dispossesses the other of the chattel, or
(b) The chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality or value or
(c) The possessor is deprived of the use of the chattel for a substantial time, or
(d) Bodily harm is caused to the possessor, or harm is caused to some person or thing which the possessor has a legally protected interest.
