Select Page

Torts
University of Dayton School of Law
Gerla, Harry S.

Torts Outline
I.                    Intentional Torts
a.      Battery
                                                              i.      A person is liable for battery if he acts intending to cause harmful of offensive contact with another person and the contact actually occurs
1.      Intent: a desire or substantial certainty that contact will occur.  Don’t forget, intent is the desire to cause the consequence or knowing with substantial certainty the act will cause the consequence—substantial certainty is 100%
2.      Harmful: cause pain or injury
3.      Offensive: that which would offend a reasonable person’s sense of personal dignity
4.      Contact: direct or indirect physical touching
5.      Person: a human being or object associated with, attached to, or in close approximation with. Gerla’s hypothetical of a guy hallucination, striking someone who he mistook for a large beetle: you have to intend contact on a person. 
                                                            ii.      Split in authority
1.      Vosburg Rule = Majority—Reasonable Person
                                                Traditional, majority view: If the contact is offensive, all you have to intend is the                                                     contact. If the contact is harmful, all you have to intend is the contact.   
                                                Contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity. 
a.       If the contact is harmful by today’s standards, and there is intent to contact another person, there is a battery. If the contact is not offensive by today’s standards, and there is intent to harm another person, there is a battery.
                                                                                                                                      i.      Question Sequence:
1.      Is it offensive? Does it offend a reasonable person’s sense of personal dignity?
2.      If yes, was there intent to contact?
3.      If no, was there intent to harm?
2.      Restatement 2nd Rule = Minority
                                                Restatement (minority view): intends to cause harmful or offensive contact with the                                                       person or a third person, or an imminent apprehension (perception) of such contact                                                    and a harmful contact with the person directly or indirectly occurs. You have to                                                            intend the contact, and you have to intend that the contact be harmful or offensive.
                                                                                                                                      i.      Question Sequence:
1.      Was there intent to harmfully contact?
2.      Was there intent to offensively contact?
 
                                                3. You don’t have to have contact with the body, anything that intimately connected                                            or closely identified
Notes: There can be battery without an assault, and actual physical contact is not necessary to constitute a battery, so long there is contact with clothing or an object closely identified with the body. Contact with anything intimately connected will suffice. 
Respondeat Superior: The liability of an employer for the conduct of an employee. An employer is liable for the tortuous conduct of its employee that is within the scope of employment. 
 
b.      Assault
                                    Restatement Definition: An actor is subject to liability to another for assault if:
1)      he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person or an imminent apprehension of such contact; and
2)      the other is thereby out in such imminent apprehension
                                   

                              ii.      How is the threat accomplished?
1.      Threats: are they legally right threats?
a.       Claim of legal Authority
b.      No, is confinement
c.       Yes, is not confinement
2.      Is the threat imminent?
a.       If you can do it now, it is imminent
b.      If you can’t do it now, it is not imminent
                                                                                                                                  iii.      If it is illegal, it is not imminent (assume you will never break the law)
2.      Against will
a.       Voluntary admission to stay does not matter. What matters is that they were restrained from leaving.
3.      Boundaries
                                                            ii.      Majority Rule: Intentional confinement, within boundaries or limits, of another person against their will, and aware of the confinement.
1.      Actuality of what plaintiff finds (re: a way out)
2.      Questions can arise if you don’t find an obvious way out
                                                          iii.      Minority Rule: (restatement) Intentional confinement, within boundaries or limits, of another person against their will, & they are either aware of confinement or are physically injured by it.
                                                          iv.      Must Release from imprisonment
1.      If you didn’t intentionally do the imprisoning
2.      You promise(d) to
3.      You innocently confined then realized you did it
Legal relationship (parent/child)