Intentional Torts
Categories
I Battery
II. Assault
III. Defenses
IV. False Imprisonment
V. IIED
Features
· Cannot be committed entirely by accident
· Actor must have intent to accomplish a certain consequence or actual knowledge that such a consequence would come about
· Intent required is different for each category of tort
I. Battery
· Harmful or offensive contact with another, direct or indirect,
· resulting from an intention to cause that contact, or from an intention to put another in apprehension that the harmful or offensive conduct is imminent
Battery Cases
1. Cecarelli v Maher (1943) pg 552- A man offered to take three ladies home from a dance, was savagely beaten by other patrons who attended the dance. Judgment was entered for the defendant. Compensation was awarded for lost wages, dental and medical expenses, and damages for pain, suffering, and permanent injury was added to this tangible figure.
2. Paul v Holbrook (1997) pg 553 – A woman sues her co-worker and company for assault, battery, and IIED. Holbrook sexually harassed Ms. Paul, on two occasions he tried to come up behind her and massage her shoulders. The court had granted summary judgment against Ms. Paul on all her allegations, appellate court reversed on battery, said the jury could decide if the attempted massage was a battery. Battery is harmful OR offensive conduct, even if the conduct is not intended to be harmful, if he intended a conduct that a reasonable person would find offensive, he could be guilty of battery.
3. Nelson v Carroll (1999) pg 558 – Nelson owed Carroll money, and Carroll confronted him about his debt in the bar. He swung a gun at Nelson, intending to hit him on the head with it, but the gun discharged and shot Nelson. Carroll claimed that this was not battery, as he did not intend to shoot Nelson. Court ruled that Carroll’s intention to bring about an unlawful contact (hitting Nelson with the gun) was sufficient to satisfy the intent element, and he is responsible for injuries that resulted from his unintended consequence (the shot). The intent element of battery does not require a specific desire to bring about a certain result. Intent is satisfied when an actor intends any harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension of such contact, even if the contact that resulted was not originally intended
4. Wagner v State (2005) pg 566 – A mentally handicapped man in the custody of state employees attacked Wagner. In Utah, the State is not liable for intentional torts committed by their employees, but can be held liable for negligent actions. Wagner argued that this incident was negligence, not battery, because a mentally handicapped individual is unable to formulate an intent to cause harm. The defendant, Utah, argued that an intent to cause harm is not necessary, the actor need only intend a physical contact that the law and that a reasonable person would consider harmful or offensive. The court found for the defendant agreeing that the tort was a battery and that the state was protected by sovereign immunity from prosecution. An actor has to intend to make a contact. It is not necessary that the actor appreciate that his act is harmful or offensive in order for this contact to constitute a battery.
Elements of Battery – pg 555 – Prima Facie Case
1. A acts
2. Intending to cause a contact with P of a type that is harmful or offensive; and
3. A’s act causes such a contact
Requirements of Battery
1. Contact must be Physical
a. Can be direct or indirect
b. Contact may be by some object set in motion by the defendant (weapon), or force (electricity)
c. Contact can be within a protective zone or space around victim’s body
i. Carbon monoxide poisoning, bullet hole in a shirt
d. Contact does not have to be from an object set in motion by defendant, as long as the contact results from defendant’s intention
e. Garratt v Dailey – Defendant pulled a chair out from underneath the Plaintiff as she was about to sit down, injuring plaintiff. Though the plaintiff set into motion the force that caused her injury, which was the floor (defendant didn’t touch the floor), defendant was liable. He intended and expected the harmful contact with the ground. Contact resulted from the defendant’s intention.
2. Contact must be Harmful or Offensive
a. No need for actual physical injury. Paul v Holbrook – contact can be offensive, but not harmful
b. Protects physical security, dignity, and personal autonomy
c. Determination of whether the conduct was harmful or offensive is based on what a reasonable person considers harmful/offensive, not what the defendant or plaintiff considers harmful/offensive
i. Must violate prevailing social standards of acceptable touching
ii. Determination of whether an action is harmful/offensive will change depending on context
d. Vosburg v Putney – pg 610 – 11 yr old defendant kicked a plaintiff’s leg in their classroom. Defendant did not intend harm, but the contact aggravated an earlier injury. Court held that plaintiff could recover for battery, because an ordinary person would consider the defendant’s behavior harmful/offensive in the context of the classroom. The same conduct might, however, be appropriate on a playground.
3. Intent – Wrongdoer must Intend Physical Contact
a. Intent required to meet battery requirement is not necessarily an intent to harm
b. Defendant must intend a contact that is considered unlawful – but he need not know that the action he intends is wrongful, harmful, or offensive
i. Vosburg v Putney pg 610 – didn’t matter that defendant didn’t know his behavior was wrong. A little boy kicks his classmate in a classroom, who already had a wounded leg, and his leg became infected. Court ruled for the Plaintiff, said that Defendant’s intent to kick, regardless of his lack of intent to do harm, is sufficient to determine liability. Further, the wrongdoer is liable for all injuries resulting directly from the wrongful act, whether or not they could be foreseen by him.
ii. Cole v Hibberd – pg 613 – Defendant Hibberd kicks Plaintiff Cole in the back, causing injuries and damages. Because of an expiration of the statute of limitations, Cole argued that the kick was negligent, because Hibberd didn’t intend to harm Cole. Hibberd argued that she intended to kick
s imminent.
i. Matters if a reasonable person would consider the contact harmful/offensive (unless in context, plaintiff and defendant had relationship, implied consent, etc.)
b. Ordinarily, words alone do not constitute an assault, but if taken with other acts and circumstances would reasonably put an individual in apprehension of an imminent harmful/offensive contact, words will suffice
c. Care required for extra-sensitive victims
i. If a defendant is unaware of plaintiff’s extra-sensitivity, he could not form the requisite intent to cause apprehension, and is not liable for assault
ii. If defendant knows of plaintiff’s extra-sensitivity, he has the requisite intent to put the plaintiff in apprehension of imminent harm, and is liable for assault
Assault Cases
1. Beach v Hancock (1853)– pg 579. Defendant pointed a gun at plaintiff and pulled the trigger twice. Gun was not loaded, but plaintiff was not aware of whether or not the gun was loaded. Court ruled that the pointing of a gun at a person reasonably nearby was an assault, regardless of whether the gun was loaded or the trigger pulled. The defendant acted to cause apprehension of a battery, it doesn’t matter that the defendant knew the battery wouldn’t occur if the plaintiff was not aware.
2. Brooker v Silverthorne (1919) – pg 580. Man threatened telephone exchange operator, alone in her office, stating that “if I were there I would break your neck.” Court ruled that the statement was not an actual threat, because he was not at the telephone exchange office. Threats must be imminent to qualify as assault – they must be immediate in time, close in proximity, and actual in statement. This statement was potential, not actual; and distant, not close
3. Vetter v Morgan (1995) – pg 583. Vetter (P) was alone in her car on a deserted road when a van pulled up, passenger (D) shouted obscenities, threatened to remove her from her van. Driver of the car veered into Vetter’s lane, causing her to lose control of her van. She sued the passenger of the car for assault, saying his actions constituted an assault and his negligence caused her injuries. Court overruled summary judgment, said jury could determine if Morgan’s behavior was extreme to make Vetter believe that he would immediately carry out his threat, her ability to prevent the threatened harm by flight or self defense is irrelevant and does not preclude the assault. Words can constitute an assault, but only when taken with other acts or circumstances that put the victim in apprehension
