Torts Outline

 
Torts Outline – David Takacs – Fall 2017
 
Tort: When one party injures another, or violates a duty to another, the injured party can find a remedy in the law to compensate for – to redress — those injuries.
          Quick facts:
Torts are set by state law
Standard of Proof (for torts): “With a preponderance of evidence” – Over 50%
 
I. INTENTIONAL TORTS
Definition: D desires or knows to a substantial certainty that a result will occur.
Quick facts:
Punitive damages are often sought in intentional torts.
Insurance/Respondeat Superior – Don’t allow for intentional tort claims (negligence okay)
Employee can bring intentional tort claim against employer directly – (no negligence)
Sovereign Immunity (Gov’t): Gov’t can’t be held liable for intentional torts of their employees; can be held liable for negligence of employees via respondeat superior.
“Egg Shell Skull” Rule: The wrongdoer is liable for all injuries resulting directly form the wrongful act, regardless of foreseeability of injuries, and must make the victim “whole”.
 
BATTERY
Rule: The infliction of a harmful or offensive contact upon another with the intent to cause such contact.
Required Elements:
ELEMENT
Description/Rule
Case(s)
Act
“A” Acts.
An act is a volitional movement.
Volitional = Will. A cognitive process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action.
 
Intent
Intending to cause contact with P (plaintiff) of a type that is harmful or offensive
 
 
Intent
to Contact
“A” only needs to have an intention to make contact, and contact is harmful or offensive.
No exceptions for mentally disabled
Transferred intent:
Victim to Victim: Intending to make contact with B, but made contact with C; liable for injuries to C.
Same Victim; Different Tort: Intending to assault, but then end up battering = Intent to batter
Wagner v. State: Ment. Disab. person beat down woman in line – had intent to contact.
 
Intent
to harm
or offend
Harm: To cause physical damage.
 
Offend:
“Reasonable Person” standard:
“What someone of ordinary sensitivity finds to be harmful or offensive contact”
To determine reasonableness, you can look at the context and circumstances surrounding the case. 
Paul v. Holbrook
Paul v. Holbrook: Creep co-worker massage – offensive.
 
Cecarelli v. Maher – 1950 Beatdown over women: Clear harmful
Contact
A’s act causes such a contact
Contact can be indirect (i.e. bullet hitting someone instead of a fist)
Extended Personality: contact need not be skin-to-skin if thing touched deemed to be part of personality (Fisher plate snatching)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ASSAULT
            Rule: When a person acts with the intention to cause the apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with P, and P reasonably apprehends such contact.
ELEMENT
Description/Rule
Case(s)
Act
“A” Acts.
An act is a volitional movement.
Volitional = Will. A cognitive process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action.
 
Intent
Intending to cause apprehension in P (plaintiff) of an imminent harmful or offensive contact
 
 
Apprehension
Only need awareness to apprehend; fear not needed.
A person can apprehend immediate harmful or offensive contact even though D is not actually capable of causing injury to P
 
 
Imminence
Potential threat needs to be imminent
Can’t say I will spit on you in two days
Brooker v. Silverthorne: Guy cussing out Phone Operator: D wasn’t able to carry out threats (wasn’t present) and didn’t specify time when threats would/could be carried out.
Reasonable Apprehension
(of harm or offense)
 Reasonable Person Test
“A person of ordinary reason and firmness”
Someone who is not particularly susceptible to fear
Mere words to constitute assault, must cause reasonable apprehension harm or offense = threats with promises and logistical ability to carry out
Vetter v. Morgan: Idiot guys threatening and spiting on woman’s car at red light. Possible factors of P being able to carry out threats=assault
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (IIED)
Rule: An outrageous [or reckless] act that is undertaken for the purpose of causing victim emotional distress so severe that I could be expected to affect adversely their physical or mental health, and such distress is caused.
ELEMENT
Description/Rule
Case(s)
Outrageous
Or
Reckless
Conduct
D’s conduct is outrageous or reckless.
It is for courts or finders-of-fact to determine if conduct is extreme or outrageous.
Outrageous
“go beyond all possible bounds of decency” and to be regarded as “atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”
Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim “Outrageous!”
NOT “mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.”
Future threats can be IIED
Dickens v.  Puryear: Conduct was outrageous, and future threats (don’t have assault imminence) can be IIED.
Done to
Cause
Severe
Distress
Distress is so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.
Reckless conduct would substitute intent here
Littlefield v. McGuffey: D kept harassing interracial couple who were going to be tenants. D pursuing P to cause distress, even after no reason to pursue P showed intent; also, death threats and racial slurs were outrageous.
Distress
is Caused
 Distress may be physical or mental
Does not have to manifest immediately; can be seen to negatively affect victim in future
Jones v. Clinton: Clinton revelas himself to Jones (staffer) in his hotel room. No severe distress. Missed no work, never complained, continued to go to work, had subsequent friendly encounters with Clinton, no adverse effects on marriage.
 
 
 
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
            Rule: When a person acts with the intention to confine P, their act causes P’s confinement, and P is aware of being confined.
ELEMENT
Descri