TORTS WEXLER FALL 2016
Double intent (Majority): D must intend the contact AND that the contact be harmful or offensive
Restatement (2d): §13 Battery; An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if,
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 a contact, AND
An OFFENSIVE CONTACT with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.
Restatement (2d) §19. Unwarranted by the social usages prevalent at the time and pace at which it is inflicted.
If (a) is lacking, but an offensive touch occurs- possibly negligent
Restatement (2d): §18 An act which is not done with the intention stated in subsection 13(1)(a) does not make the actor liable to the other for a mere offensive contact with the other’s person although the act involves an unreasonable risk of inflicting it and, therefore, would be negligent or reckless if the risk threatened the bodily harm.
Single Intent (minority)- D only needs to intend the contact that results in harm or offense (Doesn’t have to intend it to be harmful or offensive.)
Minority of courts allow recovery under battery when D’s intent was to put P in apprehension of a harmful/offensive contact, when an offensive contact does result.
Contact with body not required.
Restatement (2d) torts §18, comment P. Some things are so intimately connected with one’s body as to be regarded as part of the person. Partaking of its inviolability is actionable.
Transferred intent: P intended to commit battery against one person; and accidentally battered someone else. Purpose: to prevent people from violating the personal integrity of another person. Transferred due to intent to harm. Accountability for that intent to injure.
Battery, liable for all resulting harm.
Eggshell Doctrine – Take the π as you find him
Did Δ intent to harm someone?
Liable for ALL harm
Greater than average/expected
Even if π has a preexisting condition Δ d/n know about
Where “Take π as you find him” comes in
Smoking: Problem w/ intent : Did Δ intend to purposefully produce harmful contact or was Δ substantially certain 2nd hand smoke would contact π? Generalized knowledge that smoking can reach non-smokers d/n satisfy. What about if intentionally blow smoke in someone’s face? Liable for battery – purposeful contact
Restatement (2d) §21 Assault
An actor is subject to liability to another for assault if
(a). 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 a contact, and
(b) The other is thereby put in such immediate apprehension.
Actor must be able to carry out offensive contact. Must be imminent.
MERE Words, future threats, and threats from too far away to effectuate are not enough. Unless D is able to carry out the threat imminently and takes action to put P in a state of apprehension.
* D’s apparent ability to cause harm (real looking toy gun) can be sufficient for assault.
Must be aware. Can’t apprehend what you can’t see.
apprehension must be reasonable
Restatement, Second, of Torts §35. False Imprisonment
An actor is subject to liability to another for false imprisonment if
He acts intending to confine the other or a third person within boundaries fixed by the actor, and
His act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement of the other, and
The other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it.
Confinement Options (Confinement = no reasonable escape)
Can be restrained/confined by the use of physical barriers, physical force, direct or indirect threats, or by the invalid use of legal authority, duress, or the failure to provide a reasonable means of escape.
If there is a reasonable means to escape known and available to P, no false imprisonment. But there is no duty to look for one, and no requirement to put yourself in harm’s way to escape.
Even if the walls are paper thin, if P would have to violate property to escape, that is false imprisonment.
You can be falsely imprisoned in a small room, or large (even very large) spaces.
If you are restrained of personal liberty through fear, that can be false imprisonment.
You can consent to False imprisonment, and parents and guardians are exempt.
Just because you are excluded from one place does not create false imprisonment.
If D suspected of shoplifting and (1) it was a reasonable suspicion and (2) and the confinement was reasonable.
(1) one who by extreme and outrageous conduct
(2) intentionally or recklessly
(3 / 4) causes severe emotional distress to another is liable
r value, or
(c.) the possessor is deprived of the use of the chattel for a substantial period of time, or
(d) bodily harm is caused to the possessor, or harm is caused to some person or thing in which the possessor has a legally protected interest.
(1) Conversion is an intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel.
(2) (CONVERSION VS TRESPASS TO CHATTELS = degree of seriousness) in determining the seriousness of the interference and the justice of requiring the actor to pay the full value, the following factors are important:
(a) the extent and duration of the actor's exercise of dominion or control;
(b) the actor's intent to assert a right in fact inconsistent with the others' right of control.
(c.) the actor's good faith;
(d) the harm done to the chattel;
(e) the inconvenience and expense caused to the other.
Case: Intel Corp. v. Hamidi. Ex-employee sending anti intel corp. emails to employees.
R: Trespass to chattels occurs only when an intentional interference with the possession of personal property causes some actual injury to the property.
An umbrella Intentional Tort.
Restatement, Third, of Torts (2010)
§5. Liability for intentional physical harms
An actor who intentionally causes physical harm is subject to liability for that harm
Privileges/Defenses to intentional torts
Children: Can’t use force Maliciously. Can’t cause serious injury. Similar rights to custodian. Doesn’t extend to babysitters.
Sindle v. NYC transit authority. Bus driver takes kids to police station.
R: it is not unlawful for a person entrusted with the care or supervision of a child to use such force as is reasonably necessary to maintain discipline or promote the welfare of the child.