Select Page

Torts
University of Illinois School of Law
Robbennolt, Jennifer K.

 
Thursday, November 04, 2010
5:04 PM
Intentional Torts (If not intentional, conduct could still be N)
·         Benefits of proving an IT include- Its may eliminate AoR or Comp N defenses, more generous PC rules, punitive damages are allowed
·         Either:
1.       Desire to cause the consequences of the act or
2.       Knowledge that the consequences of the act are substantially certain to result from D’s conduct (more than a significant likelihood/probability)
·         Transferred intent- applies to battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattels (A intends to assault B but hits C by accident, A will be liable for the battery of C)
Battery:
1.       Conduct
2.       Intentionally
i.            Purpose to cause the harmful or offensive contact or
ii.            Substantial certainty such a harmful or offensive contact will occur
·         Distinguish intent to act from intent to cause harmful or offensive contact. Battery requires more than a deliberate act
3.       Causing
4.       Harmful or offensive contact
i.            Harmful Contact- Any physical impairment of the condition of another’s body or physical pain or illness
·         any alteration of structure/function of the others body = harmful contact, even if no harm results (D fixes broken arm over P’s protests still a battery)
ii.            Offensive Contact- Whether a contact is offensive is gauged by the RP standard
·         Contact with an object closely identified with the body will suffice
·         D need not actually touch the P
Assault:
1.       D intends to cause:
i.            A harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a 3rd person or,
ii.            An imminent reasonable apprehension of such a contact and, (mere words may not be enough to put a RP in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful/offensive contact)
·         Apprehension=anticipation apprehension does not = being afraid
2.       The other is thereby put in such imminent apprehension of a battery
·         Conditional threats (“your money or your life”) can satisfy imminent apprehension requirement (threats to do something in the future wont)
False Imprisonment:
1.       Conduct
i.            May be accomplished by physical restraint, violence, threats, or other means
ii.            Threat must as such that would inspire a just fear of injury to his person, reputation, or property
2.       Intentionally
·         Intent to confine, not necessarily intent to confine someone against their will
3.       Causing
4.       The unlawful confinement of another against his will
i.            (RS + Most States) Require either contemporary awareness of confinement or injury
ii.             Some courts require just awareness
·         Important whether there were reasonable means of escape (need both intent to confine and actual confinement)
·         Shopkeeper’s Privilege:
i.            A reasonable belief that a person has stolen or is attempting to steal
ii.            Detention for a reasonable time and
iii.            Detention in a reasonable manner
Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress:
1.       Conduct must be intentional or reckless
2.       Conduct must be extreme and outrageous
·         Trend is that there is liability only for conduct exceeding all bounds which could be tolerated by society, of a nature especially calculated to cause serious mental damage
3.       Must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the ED
4.       ED must be severe (so severe that no RP should be expected to endure it)
Trespass to Land:
1.       Conduct
2.       Intentionally (only requires purpose to be in that spot)
·         Doesn’t matter if trespass is N, D still potentially liable
3.       Causing
4.       Unauthorized entry onto land in the possession of another
·         You don’t have to enter, you can be liable for throwing things on another’s property
·         Authorization can be exceeded in time/place/purpose
·         No need for actual damage to the property (P would be entitled to nominal damages)
Trespass to Chattel:
1.       Conduct
2.       Intentional

ef was mistaken, even if it was sincere and reasonable
Defense of Property: May use reasonable, but never deadly, force to protect property
·         Unless your house is broken into and you fear deadly force being done to you
·         Reasonable mistake is not protected 
Recovery of Property:
·         Was the force used to regain a chattel reasonable?
·         Did the rightful possessor act in “hot pursuit” after dispossession or timely discovery of it?
·         Was the actor a shopkeeper? (if so then apply shopkeeper’s privilege- allowed mistaken belief)
·         Once immediacy is lost, the privilege is gone
·         Never allowed to use deadly force
·         If mistaken, privilege not allowed
Necessity: May allow D to take/damage another’s property, but doesn’t erase liability for damages
·         Private Necessity- To protect D’s private interest (partial privilege- compensate P for damage, but if no damage then no compensation)
·         Public Necessity- to protect a community interest (complete privilege- no compensation due to P)
Authority of Law/Discipline/Justification
·         Justification- Circumstances where it’d be unfair to hold D liable for the consequences but no other defense/privilege exists (catch all)
·         Legal Authority- Renders the conduct of officials lawful and appropriate
·         Discipline- Law privileges parents to use reasonable force in disciplining their children
Negligence
·         Duty- to use reasonable care to foreseeable others
·         Breach- failure to use reasonable care
·         Actual Causation- but for cause of the harm
·         Proximate Causation- Was the harm one of the risks which made the conduct tortious?
·         Damages
Breach of Duty
A.      General Standard of Care- What a RP would do under the circumstances (objective)
·          If B