Semester Outline
Torts I
I. Intentional Torts
A. Personal Invasions
1. Battery
2. Assault
3. False Imprisonment
4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
B. Transferred Intent
C. Defenses to Personal Invasions
1. Consent
2. Defense of Self
3. Defense of Others
4. Recovery of Property
D. Property Invasions
1. Trespass to Land
2. Trespass to Chattels/Conversion
3. Defense: Necessity
II. Negligence
A. Duty
1. Foreseeable/Unreasonable
2. Limited Duty
a. Failure to Act
b. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
c. Landholders
B. Breach
1. Reasonable Care
2. Physical and Mental Disabilities
3. Emergencies
4. Children
5. Custom
6. Professional Malpractice
7. Violation of Statute
8. Circumstantial Evidence
9. Res Ipsa Loquitor
C. Causation
1. Factual Cause
2. Proximate/Legal Cause
3. Intervening/Successive Injuries
D. Damages
1. Personal Injury
2. Property Damages
3. Punitive Damages
E. Defenses
1. Plaintiff’s Negligence
2. Assumption of the Risk
When is there a tort?
A wrong against individuals or entities
Why do we have torts?
Compensation
Deterrence
Peaceful Dispute Resolution
Justice
Elements of Intentional Torts
Act
Volitional movement by defendant
External manifestation of defendant’s will
Intent
Defendant’s state of mind
Desire to cause wrongful result
Knowledge to a Substantial Certainty (KTSC) that wrongful result will occur
Infancy or mental illness is generally not an excuse of liability (McGuire – nurse injured by insane patient)
Must be capable of forming and actually form intent
Look to experience, capacity, understanding
Mistake doctrine
If one intends to do an act which is found to be a tort, they are not excused for:
Mistakes of identity or property
Mistakes of privilege
Causation
Act must be a su
on that there will be harmful contact if no evasive action is taken
Reasonable Person Test
Minority rule rejects reasonable person test if defendant was aware of the particularly sensitivity
Imminent
No significant delay, close in time
Apparent Ability
Real ability is not required, just the reasonable belief that the defendant has the ability (Western Union Telegraph v. Hill)
Mere Words
Not enough for apprehension unless there is an accompanying act
Words alone may not negate assault (i.e. swinging bat near someone but telling them you are not going to hit them)
Intent
Desire or KTSC that the act will bring about apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact to plaintiff’s person
Consider whether transferred intent applies
Causation
Must be a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact to plaintiff’s person
