Percy Torts II
I. INTENTIONAL TORTS
A. Torts Involving Personal Injury
3. False Imprisonment
4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
B. Torts Involving Property Damage
1. Trespass to Land
2. Trespass to Chattel
C. Privileges/Defenses to Intentional Torts
3. Defense of Others
4. Protection of Property
5. Recapture of Property
7. Other Defenses
a. Authority of Law
II. STRICT LIABILITY
1. Trespassing Domestic Animals
2. Wild Animals
3. Domestic Animals
B. Abnormally Dangerous Activities
III. PRODUCTS LIABILITY
B. Breach of Warranty
C. “Strict” Liability
1. Manufacturing Defect
2. Design Defect
5. Defenses/Other Considerations
i. Contributory Negligence
ii. Assumption of Risk
iii. Open and Obvious Danger
iv. State of the Art
v. Learned Intermediary
vii. Non-foreseeable Misuse
D. Restatement 3rd of Torts—PL
E. MS PL stats
IV. WRONGFUL DEATH/SURVIVAL
A. Wrongful Death Statutes
B. Survival Statutes
C. Beneficiary Issues
E. MS WD and Survival Stats
B. First Amendment Constraints
2. Absolute Privileges
3. Conditional Privileges
B. Public Disclosure of Private Facts
C. Unreasonable Intrusion
D. False Light
A. Intentional Misrepresentation/Fraud
B. Negligent Misrepresentation
C. SL for Misrepresentation
VIII. INTERFERENCE WITH ADVANTAGEOUS RELATIONS
A. Injurious Falsehood
I. INTENTIONAL TORTS
Intent: Required to prove Π intended some contact (not necessarily the consequences/result of the contact). Look at intent to act, NOT intent to harm.
General: “substantially certain” the contact or apprehension will result. [Harder to prove.] Specific: done for the purpose of harm. Meant to cause contact.
Transferred: from person to person AND/OR from one intentional tort to another (e.g. throw flaming rock inside house—trespass of arson—and it hits some unknown person in house—transferred intent for battery.)
Policy: rule deters undesirable activity.
Volitional: ∆’s act must be volitional.
Liability: EVERYBODY is liable for intentional torts (very young children, mentally incompetent, intoxicated, etc).
· Children: At some pt, ct will say child is too young to commit an intentional tort. To get money: (a) sue parent for negligent supervision or (b) show state statute holding children responsible for malicious actions.
· Insane: MIN jurisds…disabled must appreciate the consequences OR workers at psych hospitals have assumed the risk. = potentially NO liability.
· Intoxication: civil battery may be met.
Mistake: Good faith mistake = NO defense. Mistake does not affect/negate intent!!!
Policy: deterrence against trespass/bad conduct.
Ex: Trespass…it is enough to intend to act. Does not matter that you did not intend to trespass.
Limits: Battery can claim self-defense privilege for mistaken belief of endangerment.
Negligence v. Intentional Torts:
· SOL = shorter for IT
· Punitive damages = easier to get w/ IT
· Comparative negl = NOT a defense w/ IT
· Insurance policies = usually exclude coverage for IT
· Yer/Yee = harder to prove vicarious liability for IT
A. Torts Involving PERSONAL INJURY
R §13: An actor is subject to liability to another for battery IF:
i. He acts intending to cause
1. a harmful or offensive contact
a. w/ the person of the other
b. or a 3rd person OR
2. an imminent apprehension of such a contact
3. AND such harmful contact directly or indirectly results.
Battery generally: intentional infliction of a harmful or offensive bodily contact with the Π’s person.
Intent: to make contact (NOT intent to do harm). General or specific.
Good intentions do NOT matter. Ex: Dr resets arm against your wishes.
to touch the person in such a manner as to
4. cause an imminent apprehension
5. of a battery
6. coupled w/ the apparent present ability to effectuate the attempt.
Intent: General or specific. E.g., took action w/ substantial certainty that apprehension would result.
Immediacy: Future threats don’t qualify.
Awareness: The Π must be aware of the apprehension/∆’s act/potential battery/threatened contact. (Diff from battery.)
THE diff b/n battery and assault: While every battery includes an assault, an assault does not necessarily require a battery to complete it.
Reasonableness: Must be reasonable apprehension. RPP.
Π’s super-sensitivities do not count unless ∆ knew of them.
R: CAN recover as long as the ∆ intends to put the Π in apprehension of immediate bodily contact, although the act would not have put a person of ordinary courage in such apprehension. **Research.
Apparent Ability: Must only be apparent present ability.
Belief: Don’t actually have to be able to complete the harmful or offensive contact/battery. Π must only be fearful or anticipate the contact. Ex: little old lady and WWF guy = assault. ***Research this.***
Distance: ∆’s ability to touch must be w/in reas distance of Π.
Discuss why the apparent ability is enough.
MAJ Courts: Words alone CANNOT constitute an assault.
Restatement: NO. BUT words + actions or circs = can cause reas apprehension.
Exception: R§31. Gangster known to have killed calls Π and says he will shoot him on sight. G sees Π on sidewalk & says, “your time has come.” = assault.
Words that negate conduct: Exam fav!!! When words are coupled w/ conduct but the words undo the conduct + any reas apprehension
Ex: ∆ comes up to Π, shakes his fists and says, “If you weren’t my best friend, I’d punch you in the mouth.” The words negate the conduct and undo any reas apprehension.
· Target practice…you never miss: Maybe. Issue over intent…Π may argue substantially certain/general intent that it would cause apprehension.
Construction workers holler at woman: Maybe. Must prove