Torts Outline

Torts- Fall Quarter- Class Notes and Briefs
******************************************************************************

I. Intentional Torts
Section A. Battery
1.) Intent and Volition

What is a Tort? A civil wrong the resolution of which isn’t governed by contract

Arise in absence of contractual relationships
Common law (judge made law) v statutory law

Vosburg v Putney—Intentional Torts: Intention and Volition (kid taps kids puss filled knee)

80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (1891)

An intentional tort—different from negligence b/c of intent
Unlawful act—impermissible act, or not allowed under the circumstances
Reciprocal reciprocity (risk)—doesn’t apply to the classroom—but would be an expected risk to either parties if they played soccer (assumption of risk)
Inevitability- stuff happens day to day—jostled on a bus per se
Presence of intent to harm does lead to liability, lack of intent leads to liability if act was unlawful, sort of a weaker indicator of liability.
Actor is subject to liability if he/she intends harmful or offensive contact or if harmful or offensive contact results.
Offensive contact—if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity
Damages—rule for torts is different from contracts. Torts—you pay actual damages. Contracts you pay average expected damages (could be more or less than actual). Contracts have an implicit price and average expected damages is a policy move for full disclosure in entering contract.
It takes 2 to Tort—plaintiff’s conduct. Matters less in intentional torts cases.
Egg shell skull—you take the π as you find them

Knight v. Jewett (touch football gone awray)
California 1992
Facts: K. and J. playing a game of touch football w/friends. J gets a little rough with K and K tells J that is he doesn’t watch it, she won’t play anymore. Later in game, J knocks K down and unintentionally steps on her finger. K’s finger is crushed and later amputated. K sues J for battery.
PP: Trial court gave ruled for J.
Holding: Supreme Court affirms
Rule: Requisite element of assault and battery is intent.
Reasoning: J did not intend to step on K’s hand and injure her.
Class Notes: Why is it different from Vosburg?
-issue of intent
-implied consent in participating in the game
-reciprocal risk
-inevitability- stuff happens (within reason—degrees of conduct: ie hockey-beating down
with a stick is battery)

White v. University of Idaho (piano teacher touches student)

Idaho 1989
PP: Trial court rules for W granting damages
Facts: Piano teacher instructing W in her home. Teacher comes up behind W and touches her on her back with both hands to demonstrate a piano technique. W is seriously injured. W claims act was unpermitted and offensive and took her by surprise. W sues prof and University for battery
Holding: Affirms
Rule: Intent element doesn’t require a desire to bring about a specific injury or result. Intent is satisfied if act causes intended contact that is unpermitted and harmful or offensive.
Class Notes:
-Why is this different from Knight?
· touching was intentional although the harm wasn’t, unlike in Knight
· Offensive contact case: contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity; Restatement: in order to be offensive, must be one that would offend the ordinary person, be unwarranted by social uses present at the time it was inflicted—see notes page 4
-Subjective test vs. Objective test
· Subjective: was it unwanted
· Objective: would a reasonable person find offensive
· language suggests that court in White used a subjective test-White wouldn’t have consented to touching.

Polmatier v Russ (crazy man shoots father)

Connecticut 1988
PP: Trial court found not guilty by reason of insanity. The decedent’s wife (victim) then brought suit for wrongful death in civil trial. Trial court ruled for plaintiff (wife)
Facts: R kills father in-law with a shotgun. R suffers from extreme case of paranoid schizophrenia and thought his father in law was a spy that planned to kill him. Russ claims act involuntary and insanity trumps intent (not capable of making reasonable choice)
Holding: Affirmed
Rule: Rational choice not required to form intent. Insane person may have intent to invade the interests of another even though his reasons/ motives may be irrational.
Reasoning: Insane held liable as public policy point to push/secure efficient custody and guardianship (public policy stance).
Class Notes:
– Act: a voluntary act- doesn’t cover reflexive, automatic, epileptic or thing done while asleep
– Two issues: voluntary act and intent
– Crazy person can have requisite intent

Laidlaw v Sage (bank bomber and the human shield)

NY State 1896
PP: Case tried several times due to court errors. Trial court finds for π. Δ appeals
Facts: Man holds up bank with threat of bomb explosion. Δ used clerk π as a human shield (distracts man w/ bomb and denies req. for money while moving towards π and placing π btwn him and the bomb). Man detonates bomb killing himself, damaging building and injuring π severely. Δ unscathed.
Holding: Reversed for S.
Rule: An act or omission done or neglected under the influence of pressing danger was done or neglected involuntarily—ie. intent not established—not intent.
Class Notes:
-Similar to Polmatier in an irrational act.
-Time element matters—imminent danger-no time to think abt. Consequences/ reflexive
– Torts usually used to defer bad behavior—have a greater policy impact or change in
Behavior (social deterrents)
-No time for torts to have an impact in Laidlaw case or create incentive for future behavior
-If crazy person thought they were in imminent danger but were not and acted, court might
rule for liability—public policy issue

Garret v Daley (kid tricks old lady)
Facts: (kid moves chair. Old lady trips over chair, falls and makes contact with floor)
Reasoning/ Rule: Don’t need to touch but cause contact btwn plaintiff and something elseto be liable for battery
-Knowledge that contact has potential to occur is enough for liability

Keel v. Hainline (eraser tosser hits bystander)

Okla. 1998
PP: Trial court rules for Plaintiff against all of the defendants. One defendant, K, appeals saying trial court erred in judgment on jury verdict
Facts: Kids in class are engaged in horseplay and throwing wooden erasers and chalk. Victim not a participant. Victim is hit by eraser that may or not have been thrown by defendant who was a participant in horseplay. Victim loses an eye. Victim sues several of boys engaged in horseplay
Holding: Held for plaintiff-trial court did not err. Keel was liable
Rule(s):
-If the act causing the injury was unlawful/ wrongful, the intent is necessarily wrongful.
-Transferred Transferred Intent: Accomplices who encourage, procure, instigate, abet or aid the act are also liable.
-Transferred Intent: If A attempts battery against B but mistakenly hits C instead, C can sue A for battery. A’s intent toward B are combined with the harmful nature of contact t