Torts I – Fall 2011 – JUDGE LAZER
Tort: civil wrong
Major Purposes of Tort Law
1. Provide a peaceful means for adjusting the rights of parties who might otherwise “take the law into their own hands”
2. To deter wrongful conduct
3. To encourage socially responsible behavior
4. To restore injured parties to their original condition
Preponderance of the evidence: more likely true than not true (i.e. 51%)
2 Ways to Prove intent:
1. Actor realizes with SUBSTANTIAL CERTAINTY that the contact will result in injury
2. Actor realizes a GRAVE RISK
PJI 3:1 – Intent Defined
Intent involves the state of mine with which an act is done. S/he does the act knowing, with substantial certainty that the result will follow. S/he is also said to have intended that result.
Strict Liability
– Intentional Conduct
– Negligent conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of causing harm
– Conduct that is neither intentional nor negligent, but subjects the actor to strict liability because of public policy
1. Battery
Battery: knowing or intentional touching of one person by another in a rude, insolent or angry manner à OFFENSIVE CONTACT
PJI 3:3 – Battery
A person who intentionally touches another person, without that person’s consent, and causes an offensive bodily contact commits a batter & is liable for all damages resulting from that act
Elements of a battery:
– Intent to contact
– Offensive contact
– No consent
**Every battery includes an assault, but assault does not require a battery**
Assault: intentional causing of an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact – generally words are not enough
-does not require malicious intent or want to cause harm
-it must appear to the π that the harm is imminent & Δ has the ability to carry out the threat
-π must be aware of the contact
– π must feel the apprehension, does not transfer to 3rd parties
PJI 3:2 – Assault
Intentional placing of another person in apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact
***Insanity & Intoxication are NOT tort defenses!!!!!!!!***
Transferred intent:
-Shoot a gun @ A, but the bullet hits B à the intent was transferred from A to B
OR
-Intent was to commit an assault, but a battery resulted
2. Intentional Torts
1. Battery
2. Assault
3. False Imprisonment
4. Trespass to Land
5. Trespass to Chattels
6. Intentional Infliction of emotional distress
7. Conversion
False Imprisonment – restricting a person of the physical liberty without legal justification à **Exclusively an intentional tort**
PJI 3:5 – False Imprisonment
A person falsely imprisons another person if he or she intentionally & without the right to do so confines that person & that person is aware of being confined & does not consent to it
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – One who, without privilege to do so, intentionally causes severe emotional distress to another is liable…
(1) for such emotional distress, and
(2) for bodily harm resulting from it
4 Elements to impose liability for the intentional tort of emotional distress:
(1) Conduct must be intentional or reckless
(2) Conduct must be extreme & outrageous
(3) There must be a casual relationship between the wrongful conduct & emotional distress
(4) Emotional distress must be severe
**All jurisdictions require that the π prove severe, not just mere emotional distress**
**Π’s proof of intent is relatively straight forward if the conduct is aimed at the π or if the π can show that the Δ knew that extreme emotional distress was substantially certain to follow from the conduct**
– Even if the Defendant’s conduct was beneficial to π, the Δ is still liable
– Emotional distress damages may be recovered w/o physical injury
PJI 3:6 – Emotional Distress
One who conducts toward another person in a manner so shocking & outrageous that it exceeds all reasonable bounds of decency is liable to such person for any resulting severe emotional distress.
Emotional distress is severe when it is of such intensity & duration that no reasonable person should be expected to endure it.
3. Conversion
-An intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of dominion & control over that the actor may be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel
PJI 3:11 – Conversion
A person who receives possession of the property of another & thereafter, without authority, intentionally exercises control over it in such a manner as to interfere with the other’s right of possession had converted that property & is liable for its value.
When determining th
on against a threatened battery
-Retreat: Δ must retreat if he can do so without increasing his danger
**You can stand your ground & use any force short of that likely to cause serious injury**
6. Chattel Privileges
-Fresh Pursuit: limited to prompt discovery of the dispossession & prompt & persistent efforts to recover the chattel
-Merchants Privilege: you can detain a person in a reasonable manner, for a reasonable time, on the premises à must be based on reasonably believable information
7. Authority of Law
-Police, military, Prison officials, regulatory inspectors cannot be held liable if they are commended/authorized (e.x. arrest)
8. Discipline
– Parent/Child: Parents have a privilege to discipline their children (this also includes teachers, babysitters, bus drivers etc.)
CHAPTER IV: NEGLIGENCE
Elements of a Cause of Action
a. Duty to use reasonable care – actor to conform to a certain standard of conduct
b. Breach of duty – failure to conform to the required standard of conduct
c. Causation – causation in fact & proximate cause
-Connection between the conduct & the resulting injury
d. Damage/actual loss – actual damage must occur
1. Negligence Formula
**Look to the foreseeable likelihood & foreseeable severity or harm that may ensue**
2. The Standard of Care
a. The Reasonable Prudent Person – ignorance is not a defense nor does it dismiss you from the reasonably prudent person standard
b. When proof of an accepted practice is accompanied by evidence that the Δ conformed to it, this may establish due care
c. When proof of a customary practice is coupled with a showing that it was ignored & that this departure was a proximate cause of the accident, it may serve to establish liability
d. Even when the existence of a common practice/usage is still NOT NECESSARILY a conclusive or even compelling test of negligence
