Torts Outline
I. Battery- intentional harmful or offensive touching of another, intent not necessarily to harm only to touch
a. Knowledge with substantial certainty that harm will result
b. Offensive contact in the light of reasonable minds
i. Or actual knowledge that person finds the contact offensive
1. Intent is necessary to have battery (tricycle case), no liability absent fault and wrongdoing
2. RULE: battery occurs when one acts with intent to cause harmful or offensive contact, and the contact occurs
a. Offensive-that which is offensive a reasonable sense of personal dignity (society’s or if knowledge of P’s)
3. religion case…D can be liable when there is no physical harm
a. Exception: Knowledge that conduct is offensive proves battery even if reasonable person would not find it unreasonable
4. battery is established either by intent to harm or knowledge with substantial certainty that harm will result (lawn chair)
5. A man is liable for battery if he acts with intent to cause harm or offensive bodily contact or apprehension of harmful or offensive contact with the P or third party (accidental shooting of neighbor)
II. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
a. Elements
i. Intentional or reckless conduct: knowledge that behavior will harm, reckless—deliberate disregard of high probability, or substantially certain distress will result
ii. Extreme and outrageous conduct—conduct that goes beyond all bounds of decency, atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized community
1. “conduct that offends against the generally accepted standards of decency and morality”, but not “conduct that involves bad manners and mere hurt feelings”
iii. Causation—causal link between D’s actions and P’s distress
iv. Severe distress—reasonable and justified, not a slight hurt
III. Assault
a. Act intending to cause imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact, as evaluated by the reasonable person standard
i. Rule: there need not be a literal threat to establish battery, apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person (trailer park case)
1. if you don’t actually think the person can follow through there is no apprehension
ii. Rule: no apprehension = no assault
1. when you don’t know what’s about to happen then no apprehension (coach case)
IV. Defenses to assault and battery
a. P consented to activity in question
i. Factual disagreement as to what was consented to
b. Self defense
i. Did assault and battery to defend yourself
1. would r-person defend themselves
ii. Limited by reasonableness in defense
c. Right to Defend 3rd party
i. children
V. False Imprisonment
a. Conduct which is intended to and does confine another and the person is aware of it or harmed by it, not merely blocking another, longer period of time needed (confinement by physical barrier or force, by threats or duress)
i. Do facts show confinement? Submission to assertion of arrest under legal authority, duress of goods
ii. Rule: false imprisonment is conduct by an actor which is intended to and does, in fact confine another person within boundaries fixed by the actor where the victim is either conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it
1. can be based on a false assertion of authority (Walmart case)
b. Shopkeeper’s privilege
i. Storeowners are entitled to detain individuals to investigate reasonable suspicion of theft
1. how long was it, good cause?
VI. Torts to property
a. Trespass to Land-intentional entry upon land of another, intent to enter not knowledge that it’s someone else’s
i. Unintentional entry-car out of control w/o fault, refusal to leave is then trespass
ii. Intent: purpose to enter or substantial certainty that entry will occur
iii. D liable even if no harm results
iv. Extended liability: trespasser liable for damages inflicted even if he never intende
g up in line)
vi. Physical incapacity—if not foreseeable complete defense
1. Sudden medical emergency—heart attack
2. Epilepsy—having a seizure when you didn’t take meds is foreseeable
b. Breach of that duty—standard of care
i. compare actions with r-person
ii. risk involved
iii. possibility of avoidance
iv. forseeability of harm
v. knowledge of risk
vi. magnitude of harm
vii. cost to avoid harm
viii. Res Ipsa Loquitor-substitutes for breach
1. event of a kind which does not ordinarily occur w/o negligence
2. other cases are sufficiently eliminated
3. indicated negligence w/in the scope of D’s duty to P
4. Control—satisfied even when D is not in exclusive control as long as he is D is to ensure safety of instrumentality (elevator case)
a. does not apply where negligence of D is not the only reasonable explanation for an occurrence
5. Cases:
a. Barrel falls out of shop and hits a guy, this couldn’t have occurred but for D’s negligence
b. Fire in warehouse not res ipsa because there were a bunch of other possible causes
c. Operating elevator, not exclusive control but sill responsible for maintenance of item
d. Two D’s can be found for res ipsa if both had consecutive control, either could have caused the harm
ix. Rules
1. “Reasonable care only requires [D] to summon medical assistance within a reasonable time” (Lee)
2. To determine breach: (bargee case)
a. B
