THE INTENTIONAL TORTS
An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the defendant. The level of intent required to render a party liable for an intentional tort has been described as “substantial certainty” that the result would occur.
Intend- Desire or be substantially certain a result will occur
Transferred intent- If you intended to shoot one person but missed and hit another.
-In addition to showing that the actor intentianlly commited the tort, the plaintiff must also show that the interest protected by law was invaded
Imminent apprehension-anticipation/perception that an act may be carried out
-There are 7 Intentional Torts
1) Battery
An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if:
(a) he acts intending to cause harmful or offensive contact with another or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such contact,and
(b) the harmful/offensive contact actually occurs
Offensive Contact- Would offend a reasonable person’s sense of personal dignity.
-Tested by a reasonable person standard i.e. transmission of HIV case
2) Assault-“touches the mind” – assault need not to involve actual contact it only needs intent and the resulting apprehension.
An actor is subject to liability to another for assault if:
(a) he acts intending to cause harmful or offensive contact with another or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such contact,and
(b) the other is put in such imminent apprehension
3) False Imprisonment
An actor is liable for false imprisonment when they intend to confine another within fixed boundaries and the other person is aware of this confinement.
There are 3 elements of false imprisonment:
Must be a willful detention
Must be lacking consent
Must be without nay authority of the law
Gerla Definition-Intentionally confining someone against their wil without the authority to do so.
Confinement by threat- If someone is intenitally held againbst their will by a threat it is the PLAINTIFFS burden to prove that the person making the threat did not have the right to do so.
i.e. If you leave you will be fired, if the boss makes that threat it is o.k.
Shopkeepers Privelege- he is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, with cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit theft of store property
4) Outrageous Conduct Causing Emotional Distress
An Actor is Liable for this tort when their conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another. If bodily harm stems from this distress they are also liable for that.
There are 4 elements of Intentional Infliction of emotional Distress
Conduct must be intentional or reckless
Conduct must be extreme or outrageous
The conduct must have caused the distress
The distress must be severe
(2 problems with this tort)
What’s true and what’s false?
Trifling annoyance v. serious wrong
-Left for the jury to decide in most cases
5) Tresspass to Land
-This is committed when an individual intentionally enters the land of another without lawful excuse.
-Even if one mistakenly believe it is his property, he is still intentionally tresspassing on your land.
-Results often in
will also have that defense
But….if you can reasonably retreat without posing a greater threat of harm on oneself have a duty to do so.
Defense of Property-
-The use of deadly force to protect property is outlawed
-You may use non-deadly force after warning the person
-“No amount of property is worth more than a human life”
Recapture of property involves 3 things:
1. Hot pursuit
Insistence/Warning Someone
Reasonable non-deadly force
Necessity as a Defense-
To have necessity you commit something that otherwise would have been a tort b/c the harm you would have suffered otherwise would have been greater harm
Public Necessity- Benefits society as a whole i.e. Public Fire in San Franciso
Private Necessity- You have the defense but you still have to pay for the damages
-Not liable techinically for the tort, but are liable for compensatroy damages
The Standard of Care
-What a reasonable person would do under similar circumstances
Unreasonableness;How Determined;Magnitude of Risk and Utility of Conduct ( Restatement 2nd of Torts)
-Where an act is one which a reasonable person would recognize as one involving risk of harm to another, the risk is unreasonable and the act is negligent when the risk is of such magnitude to outweigh the utility of the act or manner in which the act was completed.
