Intentional Torts
I. Battery – R2T § 13, 18: Liable for battery if (a) there is intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact, or an imminent apprehension of such contact, and (b) a harmful [or offensive] contact directly or indirectly results.
A. Elements for Prima Facie Case of Battery
a. Act by Defendant
b. Intent
c. Harmful or Offensive touching
d. Causation
e. Lack of Consent
B. Requiring Fault
a. Van Camp v. McAfoos – Child riding tricycle hits pedestrian. Not liable – No fault.
C. Elements of Battery
a. Liable for battery when (1) D acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact, and (2) when a harmful contact results. The least touching of another in anger is battery.
1. Snyder v. Turk – Dr pulls nurse’s face towards operation opening in anger.
b. D also liable not relatively trivial contacts which are merely offensive and insulting (protecting personal integrity). Contact which is offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity is offensive contact.
1. Cohen v. Smith – male nurse saw and touched P’s naked body, which was against her religious beliefs (P had informed D). Liable – offensive touching.
2. Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications, Inc. – intentional blowing of smoke in P’s face; D liable for battery. Offensive contact.
a. Employer only responsible for torts of employees if employee is acting under scope of employment.
D. Intent – R3T §1: A person acts with the intent to produce a consequence if: (a) the person acts with the purpose of producing that consequence; or (b) the person acts knowing that the consequence is substantially certain to result.
a. Substantial certainty of result can provide required intent
1. Garrat v. Dailey – Child pulls chair out from under p; P falls. Even though D doesn’t desire to harm P, if D knows there is a substantial certainty P will be harmed, then intent element of battery is satisfied.
b. Transferred intent– (1) tortfeasers intends tort on A, but commits tort on B; (2) tortfeasers intends a tort, but accomplishes another one.
1. Hall v. McBryde – D shot gun at passenger in car, D accidently shot P, pedestrian. No intent to shoot P, but use transferred intent.
2. Extended Liability – D commits intentional tort; liable for all damages resulting, not merely those intended or foreseeable
c.
a. Act by Defendant
b. Intent
c. Apprehension of immediate touching
d. Causation
e. Lack of Consent
B. No contact required for assault
a. Cullison v. Medley- Ds intended to frighten P, by surrounding him and threatening him with bodily harm with a revolver. P suffers chest pains & psychological trauma.
C. Some apprehension of the imminent contact is required for assault
a. Koffman v. Garnett – D (football coach) tackled P, while explaining a technique, and accidently broke P’s bone. No assault b/c no time for P to apprehend the imminent danger. Once coach tackled him, the battery was already in progress.
R2T §29(1) The apprehension created must be one of imminent contact, as distinguished from any contact in the future. “Imminent” does not mean immediate, in the sense of instantaneous contact . . . . It means rather that there will be no significant delay.