TORTS
I. Intentional Torts
· Liability: The intentional tortfeasor will be liable for the results of his conduct even if indirect and no matter how unlikely they may have seemed at the time of his actions. This is different from negligence where the negligent actor is liable only for the consequences which are foreseeable.
1) For example, if A intentionally hits B on the head and B is slightly injured but has to go to the hospital where a nurse accidentally gives him poison instead of medicine, A would be liable for the death as well.
· Intent: A person intentionally causes harm when the harm is purposefully or knowingly
1) Purpose—desire to bring the harm
2) Knowingly—knowledge that the harm is substantially likely to occur
3) If act is not substantially likely to bring about the action, the actor would not be liable for an intentional tort but may be liable for negligence.
4) Mohr v Williams (Minn 1905)
1. P went to D, a doctor to be treated for pain in R ear, doctor operates and finds that L ear is more severely injured so D operates on L ear. P claims that she was impaired.
2. Ruled for P, must protect her right to consent, personal autonomy, right to have control of self
5) Any unlawful touching is an assault and battery—if it was unauthorized it was unlawful—doing something against someone’s will invades their autonomy
1. for example, if one pulls chair and it is substantially likely that the person will hit the ground then intentional tort. However, if not substantially likely, then not intentional tort.
2. Transferred intent: as long as one had the necessary intent with respect to one person, he will be held to have committed an intentional tort against any other person who happens to be injured.
a. Talmage v. Smith – struck in the eye by a stick that D threw at someone else, still liable.
Ø Vosburg v. Putney (Wis. 1891)
1. Child kicks another in leg during class. Kick instigates diseased leg (condition pre-existed and defendant didn’t know) and plaintiff will never regain use of leg. Defendant did not intend for there to be any injury although the kick was intentional. “The intention to do harm is the essence of the assault”
2. But—intent to harm didn’t matter—just intent to do the wrong that caused the harm
A. Battery
· 1) Intentional infliction of 2) harmful or offensive 3) bodily contact to person or something closely related to that person.
· Intent: actor must intend to either make contact or commit assault which inadvertently results in contact.
· Harmful (causes pain or physical damage) or Offensive (damaging to reasonable sense of dignity) contact. This can be indirect contact.
1) Alcorn v. Mitchell – spitting and Garrett v. Dailey – child pulling chair caused old lady to make contact with ground.
B. Assault
· 1) Intentional
nt: only where person suffering IIED is Plaintiff’s immediate family.
Ø Wilkinson v. Downtown (England) (76)
1. D plays joke on P claimer her husband was hurt—she sustains pervious shock injuries
2. D has to pay transportation and punitive costs for IIED
3. The act was calculated—motive to cause an emotional response
4. IIED claims do not have to be parasitic on another tort
5. Parasitic: in order to gain damaged for a given harm they must be attached to claim for damages from original tort
6. Here, there is a fear of groundless claims-
§ Administrative Costs – cost of litigation, would be high
D. Trespass to land
· Trespass to land is the 1) intentional 2) unauthorized entry onto the land of another or the placement of an object on the land of another.
· Intent: actor knows with substantial certainty, that he is entering other’s land. For example if the owner of a company that releases ash on the neighbor’s land knows about it, he has met the intent requirement.
Trespass to chattels: intentional interference with another’s possessory interest in a chattel, resulting in damage to that interest.
