Torts I
Professor Kass
Fall 2013
INTENTIONAL TORTS
A TORT is: A civil wrong or injury, other than a breach of contract, for which the law will provide a remedy.
Tort Liability Theories:
– Intent
– Negligence
– Strict Liability
Intentional Torts Elements
The ACT element requires proof of:
· A volitional movement by D [some external manifestation of D’s will]
· Some wrongful result to P [Depending on which intentional tort at issue]
The INTENT element requires proof of [D’s state of mind]
· Desire to cause the particular wrongful result OR
· Knowledge to a substantial certainty (KTSC) that the wrongful result will occur
The CAUSATION element requires proof that: [Nexus between D’s action & wrongful consequence to P]
· D’s action was a substantial factor in bringing about the wrongful result to P
· Meaning, D’s conduct must have materially contributed to the wrong to P
MOTIVE is
· The reason the D desired to bring about the wrongful consequence
· NOT a required element à May be relevant to recovery of punitive damages
KTSC: D understands the wrongful result is practically certain to occur
RECKLESS CONDUCT:
· D disregards a high degree of probability the wrongful conduct will occur
DESIRE—- KTSC —- RECKLESS —- NEGLIGENT
GENERAL CHILD RULE
· Infancy does NOT provide automatic immunity from liability
· But, the child must be capable of forming & actually form the requisite intent
Garrat v. Dailey [CB 17]
Requisite intent for battery:
· Desire to bring about harmful or offensive contact OR
· KTSC that harmful or offensive contact will result
MENTAL ILLNESS GENERAL RULE
· Mental illness does not provide automatic immunity from liability
· But, a mentally ill person must be capable of forming the requisite intent to be liable.
· EXCEPTIONS to General RULE:
o Institutionalized Patients:
§ Not liable for injuries to those employed for their care
GENERAL INTENT RULES
· Neither infancy nor mental illness provide automatic defenses to intentional tort liability
· The child or the mental ill D, however, must be capable of forming & actually form the requisite intent (desire/KTSC)
BATTERY
Battery occurs when:
· D’s act intentionally causes
· Harmful or offensive contact w/the P’s person
BATTERY
ACT:
A volitional movement by D that results in harmful or offensive contact to P’s person
INTENT:
Desire or KTSC that the act will bring about a harmful or offensive contact to P’s person
CAUSATION:
D’s action must be a substantial factor bringing about the harmful or offensive contact to P’s person
BATTERY REQUIRES:
* Contact w/P’s person
Which is either
· Harmful OR Offensive
CONTACT
HARMFUL CONTACT
OFFENSIVE CONTACT
· Physical touching
· Direct OR Indirect
· Physical pain
· Illness
· Physical Impairment/alteration
· Affronts a reasonable person’s sense of personal dignity (e.g. disrespectful, rude, demeaning contact)
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel [CB 36]
Contact “with P’s person”
– Actual physical contact w/P’s body OR
– Contacting something intimately associated w/P’s body
– Offensive Contact:
o Battery protects an individual’s
§ Bodily integrity (physical integrity) &
§ Personal dignity (psychological affronts)
Wallace v. Rosen [CB 31]
– Not all contacts are actionable as battery
– Contacts that are customary & reasonably necessary to daily living not actionable as battery
** For the tort of Battery, Plaintiff need not prove:
– Bad motive
– Contemporaneous awareness
– Actual damages
ASSAULT
Assault occurs when:
· D’s acts intentionally cause
· Reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact w/P’s person
ACT:
Volitional movement by D that results in P’s reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact to P’s person.
INTENT:
Desire or KTSC that the act would bring about P’s apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensives contact to P’s person.
CAUSATION:
D’s action must be a substantial factor in bringing about P’s apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact to P’s person.
I de S et ux. v. W de S [CB 37]
· Physical harm not required for assault
· The apprehension is the
prove contemporaneous awareness of confinement OR physical harm from it
Minority Rule:
· Contemporaneous awareness NOT required
Hardy v. LaBelle [CB 45]
· Restraint must be against P’s will as well as unlawful
· Submission to moral pressure is NOT restraint against P’s will
AGAINST P’s WILL
P must prove restraint/confinement was against his/her will (P did NOT consent)
· Submission to a verbal demand alone is NOT restraint P’s will
· Submission to moral/emotional pressure is NOT restraint against P’s will
· Submission to economic pressure is NOT restraint against P’s will
DOCTRINE OF TRANSFERRED INTENT
The law TRANSFERS INTENT where:
D INTENDS to commit a TORT against ONE PERSON but instead –
· Accomplishes a DIFFERENT TORT against that person;
· Accomplishes the intended tort, but against a DIFFERENT PERSON; or
· Accomplishes a DIFFERENT TORT against a DIFFERENT PERSON
Talmage v. Smith [CB 28]
Doctrine of Transferred Intent
Allows transfer of D’s intent
· To commit battery against one person
· To intent to commit battery against another
Applies to 5 Intentional Torts
· Assault
· Battery
· False Imprisonment
· Trespass to chattels
· Trespass to property
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
D’s outrageous acts intentionally or recklessly cause P’s severe emotional distress (SED)
ACT:
· Extreme & outrageous action by D that results in P’s severe emotional distress
INTENT OR RECKLESSNESS:
· Desire or KTSC that act will bring about P’s severe emotional distress (SED) OR
· Recklessness as to whether SED will result
CAUSATION:
· D’s outrageous act must be a substantial factor causing P’s SED
