Some things are crimes and torts
1. Battery
2. Assualt
Tort only
1. Negligence
INTENTIONAL TORTS
All Intentional Torts are distinct causes of action. Generally, to establish a prima facie case for intentional torts, the Õ must prove a voluntary act, intent, and causation. Minors and insane people are liable for their intentional torts, but intelligence, maturity, capacity, etc. can negate their ability to form specific intent. Must negate both conscious purpose and knowledge to substantial certainty.
I. TRANSFERRED INTENT
Where a D:
1. Intends to commit a tort against one person but instead commits a different tort against that person or;
2. Commits the same tort against a different person.
Examples
1. D intends to punch Õ but misses and only scares Õ
2. D intends to punch Õ1. Õ1 ducks and D punches Õ2.
1. Hall v. McBryde — gun case w/ maybe people who were in a gang. Prolly the “Bloods.” He doesn’t have a conscious purpose to inflict a harmful or offensive contact on the plaintiff. Conscious purpose to commit one tort and you commit another.
II. BATTERY
1. Voluntary Act committed by the defendant – conscious bodily movement
2. Intent- act caused contact with the plaintiff
§ Conscious purpose or;
§ Knowledge to a substantial certainty
3. Defendant caused harmful or offensive contact
§ Offensive contact is offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity. Where the D has actual knowledge there’s no consent, that’s an offensive contact.
§ Harmful – causes a physical harm.
4. Harmful or offensive contact results — Extended personality rule — you don’t have to actually make offensive contact with the “body” of another — something they’re holding, touching, etc, such that they would be offended.
Intent Required
Result Required
Touching
Touching
One of these:
Harm or offense
And one of these:
Harm or offense
Reasonable person standard=
For a battery to occur
Objective= plaintiff must prove that it the contact would be harmful to a reasonable person
For result: Contact must be harmful or offensive to a reasonable person in the circumstances of the plaintiff.
This rule screens out the people suing for trivial matters.
Can have situations where no fair opportunity to avoid plaintiff who says “no touching.” Hypo: Walking down the hall and say don’t touch me. But, people touch you anyway. It can’t be avoided. So it’s ok.
Van Camp v. McAFoos — Õ failed to state a claim. Didn’t plead that the child intended to strike her. Unless the Õ can prove SOME kind of fault, tort law doesn’t let her recover.
Facts: McAfoos a three-year old infant operated a tricycle and drove it into Van Camp, injuring her Achilles tendon. Van Camp pleas the McAfoos “operated a tricycle on said public sidewalk and drove the tricycle into the rear of the pl. without warning” “ and it was a direct and proximate cuase of the defendant’s action the pl. tendon as injured and required surgery”
Rule: Plaintiff must plead fault as one of the essential elements of liability.
Holding: No. The plaintiff did not allege the defendant was negligent or that they were willful or wrongful in any manner. Intentional wrongful or negligently wrongful use of the tricycle is neither pled nor can it be made out from the bare allegation defendant.
Snyder v. Turk
Facts: Turk was a surgeon performing a gall-bladder operation. He became frustrated with the operation and with the plaintiff a nurse. Defendant’s perception was that the pl. was making mistakes. He finally became so exasperated when the pl. handed him an instrument he considered inappropriate that he grabbed her shoulder sand pulled her face down toward the surgical opening, saying, “Can’t you see where I’m working? I’m working in a whole. The nurse said that is fine.
Rule: The parties agree that a “battery” is defined as an intentional, unconsented-to contact with another.
Holding: Yes. The doctor is subject to liability. A person is subject to liability for battery when a harmful contact results. Contact which is offensive to a reasonable and sense of personal dignity is offensive contact. Reasonable minds could find that the doctor had intent.
Cohen v. Smith — Person who didn’t want to be touched naked during cesarean for religious reasons. Got touched by nurse. . Offensive. Beyond the scope of consent.
Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications, Inc. – Smoke is a particulate matter that made contact with the Õ. Physical contact is an absolute requirement of battery.
Rule: In determining if a person is liable for a battery, the sup court has adopted the rule that “contact which is offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity is offensive contact.” It has defined offensive contact to mean “disagreeable or nauseating or painful because of outrage to taste and sensibility or affronting insultingness.” Tobacco smoke, as “particular matter,” has the physical properties capable of making contact.
Garrat v. Dailey
Facts: Garratt pulled a chair away frothem Daily before she sat down.
son of insanity.
Issue: Should the conviction be overturned since the defendant was Schizophrantic?
Rule: Insanity is not, in itself, an excuse from tort liability.
Holding: No. While the defendant was found not guilty for reasons of insanity. His beating and shooting fell under intentional tort.
III. ASSAULT
To establish a prima facie case for assault the following elements must be proved:
1. A voluntary act – conscious bodily movement
2. By D creating reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.
3. Intent
§ Knowledge to a substantial certainty or;
§ Conscious purpose
4. Causation
White v. Munitz
Facts: Helen Everly an alheirmerz patient in a nursing home hit a nurse when she was changing her adult diaper. The nurse sued under the argument that a person may suffer from dementia, Alzheimer but still act intentionally in committing a tort. Rule: People suffering from alheimerz do not possess the necessary intent to commit an assault or a battery. THE RULES IN THIS CASE ARE NOT DIFFERENT THAN RUSS. THE JURY JUST FOUND THAT THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO FIND THE PATIENT WAS HARMFUL OR OFFENSIVE. Holding: Insanity is not a defense to an intentional tort according to the ordinary use of the term, but it is a characteristic, like infancy, that may make it more difficult to prove the intent element of battery. Our decision today does not create a special rule for the elderly, but applies Colorado’s intent requirement in the context of a woman’s suffering the effect of Alheimerz.
