Torts I Professor Laufer-Ukeles Fall 2011
University of Dayton
CONTACT (Single Majority) Jim’s HENDERSON Rule
HARM (Dual Minority) Aaron’s TWERSKI Rule
Purposeful & Substantially Certain
Hitting, pulling chair direct or indirect contact must be offensive to a reasonable PERSON
Substantially certain to commit harm
Substantial certainty: If you desire to bring or knew with substantial certainty that it would occur as a result. Garratt v. Daley (boy and chair)
TYPES OF DAMAGES
5. Special Property
INSURANCE: Usually won’t cover intentional torts but will cover negligence
WORKMANS COMPENSATION: Usually won’t allow for punitive damages unless the employer intended the harm
The dual intent rule requires more wrongfulness. The single intent rule requires less wrongfulness and is more concerned about ordering society and making sure that people conduct themselves in a proper matter going forward.
1. Ignorance no Excuse: Mistake not knowing the law is irrelevant Ranson v. Kitner (dog looks like wolf- mistake of fact no excuse)
2. Insane Person can be liable: If capable of forming the intent, does not include things requiring high intelligence or rationality like deception. Will not include if the person thought you were an object or animal not a person.
3. Transferred Intent: If you plan to commit an intentional tort on person A but instead it affects person B, you will be liable to B because you had the intent.
4. Intent to commit different Tort is also transferrable intent: e.g. you planned to commit one tort i.e. assault but instead commit battery.
5. Eggshell skull: liable for the injuries caused even if they are unforeseeably serious. “takes the victim as he finds him”
IIED, Nuisance & Trespass to chattel = NO NOMINAL
Act intending to cause harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person and harmful or offensive contact results.
PERSON= anything closely associated
Does not have to be direct only set the motion in force
Garrett v. Bailey (minor pulls chair)
Brzoska v. Olson (no HIV exposure)
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel (discrimination plate pulled from hand)
Harmful or offensive contact
Act intending to cause harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such contact and the other is thereby put in imminent apprehension.
Nominal+ Transferred Intent
DON’T HAVE TO BE AFRAID
Western Telegraph v. Hill (woman felt imminently threatened)
Harmful or offensive
Act intending to imminently confine the person or a third party within boundaries fixed and act directly or indirectly results in such confinement and D is conscious of or harmed by it
Nominal + Transferred Intent
Grant v. Stop N Go Market (man detained in shop)
aware of confinement
Act recklessly DUAL intent to cause extreme or outrageous emotional distress and person is thereby put in extreme distress and harm results
No transferred but present third party who is close can recover. May be restricted to family
Harris v. Jones (employee with speech impediment no direct harm correlated)
Intent, substantially certain, dual intent, extreme, outrageous, harm results
Trespass to Land
An intentional and unauthorized physical invasion directly or indirectly of plaintiff’s possessory interest in land.
Set the force in motion e.g. spray water, kick ball
Nominal + others
Rogers v. Kent County board (failure to remove object when asked is trespass)
Not mistake of fact
Can be: Intentional, Negligent, or Strict Liability, substanti
4)Mistake reasonable if for self
Defense of Real property
May not use deadly force
Katko v. Briney (can’t use shotgun to protect property)
Surroco v. Geary(Liken Rule) Life vs. Property do NOT balance not liable for any damage
Ploof v. Plutnam: Don’t untie the boat or you become negligent
Life for life balance the risk not guilty for tort but will pay damages
Vincent v. Lake Erie doctrine: wharf damaged property to property not trespass balance risk & pay damages
Defense of Chattel
Mistake no excuse
Reasonable force If in HOT Pursuit
Justification for the action taken
Sindle v. New York Transit
Bus driver detained students damaging property on bus
1. Present and impending violation” and using deadly force must be reasonably necessary to prevent” violation.
How do you know when deadly force is reasonably necessary?
a. Not actual threat, but must be reasonable for victim to apprehend threat and act in self-defense under the circumstances. (Courvoisier Rule)
Reasonable victim or that victim?
b. Take into account both victim and aggressors physical capacities and psychological make-up.
1. If threatened with death or grave bodily injury can use deadly force
2. The amount of force proportional to the original force of the aggressor may be used to repel his aggression.
3. Judged by asking how much force deemed reasonably necessary under the circumstances (not actually necessary)
4. Original victim becomes aggressor to the extent using more than proportional force