TORTS
WRIGGINS
SPRING 2013
Tort: an even that arises out of the action or omission of a party, which causes injury to the human body or personality, to property, or to economic interests, in circumstances where the law deems it is just to require compensation from the person who has or fails to act.
Categories of Liability: All Torts Fall Under:
1. Actions for intentionally Inflicted Injury (Intentional Tort)
2. Actions based on failure to exercise care (negligence)
3. actions in which liability is imposed without regard (strict liability)
BASIC INTENTIONAL TORTS
INTENT GENERALLY
Intent: The intent is the state of mind about consequences or results and is differently defined for each tort.
1) purpose (defendants subjective wishes)
2) Knowledge (regardless of purpose D knows with substantial certainty action may cause result).
Motive is not dispositive of intent
Intent is…Restatement 8a: defendant desires or is substantially certain the elements of the tort will occur. See Garret.
Good Faith Mistake Rule: Good faith does not affect whether an intentional tortfeaser is liable if D had requisite intent. But is may still be a defense/privilege D can raise.
Induced Mistake Rule: Conduct basd upon a mistake induced by P does not ordinarily mean D is liable to P
Volitional Rule: No tort for involuntary action (P takes C’s hand to slap D’s face)
Restatement §13 Torts 29: an act which directly or indirectly is the legal cause of a harmful contact with another’s person makes the actor liable to the other if a) intention to bring about harm and b) contact is not consent and c) not privileged contacts. See Garret and Voxburg. So what is the point of this restatement? Why did I copy it down?
Insane Tortfeaser Rule
(Majority): insanity and mental incapacity are not per se immune for tort liability, but may factor into an anaylsis of intent. See Mcguire v Almy
(Minority): There is no liability when D has no control at all AND P chose to work there AND D caretakers taken all precations. Distinguished from Mcguire.
Intoxicated Tort Feasor: not an excuse from liability
Child Rule:
(modern): this is not a per se bar but may be taken into account for intent
(Minority/common law/) Vicarious liability on parents for not controlling child.
ASSAULT
Assault: An act by D that intentionally creates imminent apprehension in the mind of P from the present apparent ability of D of possible physical contact that is harmful or offensive see Western Union
Why: created to protect a person against the mental disturbance associated with a threat to personal body integrity.
Elements P must prove:
1) an intentional act by D that
a) The defendant must desire or be substantially certain that her action will cause X
2) Apprehension in the mind of P of imminent harmful or offensive contact
a) there is disagreement over I) reasonable or ii) genuine
b) does not need to be actual fear, merely apprehension
3) D must have present apparent ability
P must believe that the act may result in imminent contact unless prevented from so resulting by the other's self-defensive action. Does not matter what D believes.
Not assault: future threats, mere words
BATTERY
Battery: the intentional infliction of unconsented bodily contact that is harmful or offensive
Elements:
1) Intent to cause harmful or offensive contact
see vosburg
2) Harmful or Offensive
3) Causation
D volunt
d place of conversion (as to purchase it, it being fully converted to another’s use). Intangible or irreplaceable items are valued by the fact-finder.
see Kremen v Cohon (court struggle to adopt in modern times)
Theft=void; fraud=voidable, remember Bonofide Pruchaser For Value Without Notice=valid unles title void.
Trespass to chattel de bonis asportis: interfering with something not your own
1. Intentional
2. Interference with another’s property
3. That is less than dominion
Damages=value of cimunition NOT whole value of property.
o Damage is the actual value of the dimunition, NOT the whole value of the property.
Together: They exist on a spectrum with no clear line, more damages for conversion than for chattels
INTENTIONAL OR RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMO DISTRES
IRIED
Elements:
1) Intentional or reckless conduct (super intent?)
2) that is extreme and ourtragoues conduct
minority requires some physical conduct.
3) with a casual connection between the conduct and the emotional distress
4) and the is emotional distress is severe
See harris v jones (shows this is high burden that is not taken in a vacuum. What does that actually mean?
Minority Rule: requires
For a third Party Reckless: (majority) RIED for 3rd party is
1) family member
2)close proximity
3) witness death or serious injury
See sea world hypo
