Sloan_Torts_Summer_2010
EXAM:
1. Review the fact pattern to spot each individual tort.
2. For each tort determine whether a prima facie case for that tort has been made
3. Analyze what defenses/justifications the D can raise.
Tort: A civil wrong committed by one person against another that is recognized by law.
Approaches à
Morality/ Corrective Justice
Attempts to hold D liable for harms they wrongfully caused. (justice for the individual)
Firewall: Should be compensated b/c the D harmed P.
Social Utility/Policy
Bases tort law on a social policy/good for all of us view; dominant concern is a system of rules that work for good of society.
Firewall: Should not be compensated b/c it was for the good of the society to stop the fire.
Process
Rules must be made with the legal process itself in mind; rules that judges and juries can understand and apply.
Fault: Intentional misconduct or at least unreasonably risky conduct that is likely to cause harm to others.
Intentional ß—-à Recklessness ß—à Negligence ß—à Strict ß—à Vicarious
Most fault ß——————————————————————————à Least Fault
Intentional Torts – The D desires to bring about a particular result.
Battery: The intentional infliction of a harmful or offensive bodily contact/un-consented to touching
Elements à
Intent
Result
Touching
Touching
Harmful
Harmful
Offensive
Offensive
Intent: It is not necessary that D desires to physically harm P.
1. D intended to cause harmful or offensive bodily contact
2. D intended to cause an imminent apprehension on P’s part of a harmful or offensive bodily contact
* D’s level of knowledge can affect intent; intent can be inferred from knowledge
Knowledge: Substantially certain that a harmful/offensive touching will occur
Purpose: Acted with purpose
Harmful Touching: If the physical contact is harmful (causes pain or bodily damage)
ex. Bullet
Offensive: If the contact is offensive to a reasonable sense of dignity (not always bodily contact)
ex. Kiss, particulate matter, spit
* Objective – Applying a reasonable person (usual social expectations)
* Subjective – Applying a specific/unique person
= Although we are using an objective test we look to a reasonable person in P’s place.
– P does not need to be aware
Children: Children may be liable for the torts they commit as long as the inured P can prove the elements, including intent.
Transferred Intent: If D held the necessary intent with respect to person A, he will be held to have committed an intentional tort against any other person who happens to be injured.
Cases à
Snyder v. Turk
Whether having P’s face shoved into an open patient by a surgeon is battery.
1. Intent: a reasonable mind could conclude there was intent to commit an offensive act.
2. Result/Touching: Yes
3. Result/Offensive: Harmful to P’s personal dignity.
Cohen v. Smith
Whether a D, knowing of P’s special religious beliefs committed battery by touching P during cesarean section.
Yes, b/c D knew of P’s religious beliefs he committed battery by touching her.
– Reasonable sense of dignity of someone in P’s shoes.
Mullins v. Parkview Hospital
Whether D, not knowing of P’s request to only be operated on by Dr.s committed battery by intubating P.
No, D could not have intended to commit battery b/c he did not know of P’s request.
Garratt v. Dailey
Whether a 5 year old D committed battery by pulling a chair out from under P, causing her to fall.
1. Intent: If it was proved that D knew with substantial certainty P would be injured.
2. Result: Yes, P fell and broke her hip.
Stoshak
ight to force P to leave.
Transferred Intent: If D has an intent to commit a battery but misses – the intent will transfer to assualt
ex. D intends to commit an assault but instead commits battery – D is liable for battery b/c of transferred intent.
ex. P sees D raise a piston at P’s husband. D shoots and misses. P cannot recover for assault b/c she did not fear a contact with her own body.
Cases à
Cullision v. Medley
Whether D committed assault by going to P’s mobile home and threatening him for inviting a 16-year old girl over.
Yes, a reasonable jury could conclude that by surrounding P, in his home, and flashing a gun is assault.
– Intention to threaten him
Koffman v. Garnett
Whether D committed assault by slamming a student to the ground to demonstrate the proper tackling technique.
No, b/c the tackle occurred without warning there was no apprehension and therefore no assault.
Dickens v. Purvear
Whether D committed assault by saying “If you don’t pack your belongings and leave the state I am going to kill you.”
No, b/c P waited 3 years to bring the suit the threat was not imminent.
False Imprisonment: The intentional infliction of a confinement
Elements à
1. Actor must confine within fixed boundaries
2. P must show that D either intended to confine him, or at least that D knew with reasonable certainty that P would be confined by D’s actions. (not mere negligence or recklessness)
3. Victim is conscious of the confinement at the time OR suffers some actual harm.
