Torts Outline

 
Torts 1
Fall 2014
Mitchell
 
 
 
Quick Reference Sheet
I.       Intent
A.     Two Types
1.     Specific Intent- acts w/ purpose/desire of producing consequences
2.     General Intent- Knew w/ substantial certainty that consequences would result from actions
a.     not necessary to know degree/nature of the harm but rather just a general harm
B.     Generally:
1.     Does Not Require Malice, Intent to Injure, Other Bad Motive à but may impact punitive damages/negate privilege
2.     Mistake/Intoxication/Infancy/Mental Deficiency don’t negate Intent
a.     Minors/Infancyà look at ∆’s age, experience, and knowledge to determine general intent. (Garratt)
i.       Majority: children and mentally incompetent/deficient can be liable for IT if they have intent.  Determined on a case-by-case basis—(this is the majority rule)
ii.      Minority: Children under seven can never form the necessary intent
iii.    some jurisdictions: age below which a minor not liable à too young to form intent
b.     Mental Deficiency: mental deficient person can be liable for IT if they have necessary intent. (White v. Muniz)
C.    Intent Doctrines
1.     Transferred intent: if ∆ intended to commit one of the five traditional torts (b, a, fi, t/l, t/c), intent can transfer tort to tort OR person to person.
i.       Hall v. McBryde intend to shoot at car to scare people, but actually hit someone àliable for battery
b.     Restatement: TI only between assault & battery
2.     Single v. Dual Intent: intent requirement of jurisdiction is critical to determine if D intended h/o contactà Cultural and contextual facts matter! Should be for jury to decide.
a.     Single Intent: intended contact that results in h/o contact) (MIN)
b.     Dual Intent: intended contact and intended contact be harmful/offensive (MAJ)
i.       White v. Muniz: mental deficiency makes intent hard to prove in dual intent jurisdictions since D must intend offensive or harmful consequences
II.      Scope of Liability
A.     Liability extends to consequences which D did not intend, and could not reasonably have foreseen, because it is better for unexpected losses to fall upon the intentional wrongdoer than upon the innocent victim
1.     extent of harm and nature of consequences go to appropriate remedy and amount of damages reward
a.     In Nelson, if one intends a harmful contact but the harm that transpires is unforeseeable and worse, liability for battery should still attach.
III.    Causation:
A.     D’s act was legal cause of resulting harm/a substantial factor in creating harm. 
1.     causation + compensable harm = scope of liability not limited to foreseeability
IV.   Intent Cases
A.     Garratt v. Dailey- Specific Intent and General Intent.  General Intent: knowledge w/ substantial certainty.  To prove general intent, it is not necessary to know the degree or nature of the harm but rather just a general knowledge.  Court looked to D’s age, knowledge, and experience to know whether or now D knew w/ substantial certainty (no significance given to his age)
B.     Waters v. Blackshear: If the ∆ intends the contact, the ∆ is responsible for all harm that results
1.     Extent of the resulting harm need not be intended nor foreseen for harm to be intentional.  Intentionally placing firecracker in shoe and intentionally lighting it constituted a harmful contact that ∆ intended. 
C.    White v. Muniz- Alzheimer’s patient may be held liable if capable of entertaining the same particular intent that would be necessary in order to render a normal person liable.
D.    Hall v. McBryde: Because D shot a gun for the purpose of putting others in apprehension of h/o contact, D is liable to π who was accidentally shot in crossfire. 
1.     Doctrine of Transferred intent:  When intent to harm one person results in harm to another person, the law transfers the intent to the actual person harmed.
Prima facie
I.       Battery:D VIC + harmful/offensive contact OR imminent apprehension of such contact, and  directly or indirectly caused harmful or offensive contact.  Depending on the jurisdiction, w/o consent and lacking privilege. 
A.     If battery is committed, check to see if victim saw it coming and see if there is a case for assault!
B.     Was ANYTHING touched that a person was holding/attached too?
 
II.      Assault: D VIC +reasonable and imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact, and did cause such apprehension. In most jurisdictions, an overt act is required. Depending on the jurisdiction, w/o consent and lacking privilege. 
A.     Π must be AWARE of D’s act & D must have apparent ability to carry out threat imminently.
 
III.    False Imprisonment: D VI + to restrain π in a bounded area, and, depending on the jurisdiction, the π must either be aware of the confinement or harmed by it.   Depending on the jurisdiction, w/o consent and lacking privilege. 
A.     There must be no reasonable means of escape, no privilege to confine
 
IV.   Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:D’s extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional distress. NO TI
A.     To protect emotional tranquility
B.     Threshold question: would reasonable person view it as outrageous
C.    No physical manifestation of distress required
 
V.     Trespass to Land: D: VI + enter another’s property (OR caused another person or thing to enter property of another) And did enter another's land.  Depending on the jurisdiction, w/o consent and lacking privilege. 
A.     No harm required
 
VI.   Trespass to Chattels: D: VIC + intentionally interferes (dispossessing or intermeddling) w/ π’s right of possession in the chattel and damages resulted.  Depending on the jurisdiction, w/o consent and lacking privilege. 
A.     Intent: ∆ intended to perform the act that interfered w/ the possession; Cause:  ∆ was the legal cause or set in motion that which caused the interferences
B.     If no dispossession (just intermeddling w/o damages or loss of possession to π, NO C/A
 
VII.  Conversion: D VI + to exercise dominion and control which seriously interferes w/π’s right of possession w/ the chattel, requiring ∆ to pay full market value. NO TI
A.     bona fide purchaser  of chattel may become a converter if the chattel was stolen from the true owner
B.     Wrongful acquisition, Wrongful transfer, Wrongful detention, Substantially changing, Severely damaging/destroying, or  Misusing
Defenses/Privileges Summary
I.       Consent: π manifests willingness in fact that conduct occur.  Expressed or Implied.
A.     Implicit Consent can be implied fromπ’s conduct, custom, circumstances.
B.     Explicit or Implicit (restatement 892)
1.     It may be manifested by action or inaction and need not be communicated to the actor.
2.     If words or conduct are reasonable understood by another to be intended as consent, they constitute apparent consent and are as effective as consent in fact.
C.    custom: D shows it was customary for one in πs position to consent to ∆’s conduct, there is consent absent objective manifestation of consent by π
II.      Self-defense: D  may use reasonable force to defend
A.     Based on reasonable belief, for protection only from immediate threat (not retaliatory/preemptive), not available to initial aggressor, and (in maj) no duty to retreat
B.     to assess reasonableness: Character/rep of attacker, Belligerence, Size difference/strength, Overt act/Threats of bodily harm, and if Peaceful retreat impossible
III.    Defense of others:  D privileged to use reasonable force to protect a person against unprivileged acts that D  reasonably believes will cause harmful or offensive bodily contact (or illegal confinement)
A.     D escapes liability ONLY IF:
1.     D makes reasonable mistake (reasonably believes victim is privileged to assert S/D  (MAJ)) OR
2.     victim had a right of S/D & ∆ “steps into the shoes” of the person aided
B.     otherwise, same rules as S/D
IV.   Defense of property: defend against intrusion, taking, harm, or continuing trespass using proportional force that is reasonably necessary to accomplish the task.
A.     1st REQUEST TO DESIST àreasonable force (NEVER DEADLY FORCE (Katko))
B.     Usually used in cases of theft
V.     Recovery of property: If D’s chattel is wrongfully and forcibly taken, D may use reasonable force while in fresh pursuit AFTER 1st  demanding return (unless demand would be futile or dangerous).  
A.     If another’s possession of the chattel began lawfully, D may use only peaceful means to recover the chattel
VI.   Necessity:D’s interference w/ property is reasonable and necessary to defend/prevent/avoid imminent harm (for which π isn’t responsible) that would cause more serious injury thanD’s interference.
A.     Public: D’s privilege is absolute if  danger is to entire community or to so many people that public interest is involved
B.     Private: if D’s act is solely to benefit any person or to protect any property from destruction or serious injury, defense is qualified (actor must pay compensatory damages for injury caused)
C.    Used escape liability for T/L, T/C, & Conversion
VII.  Authority of law: – Acts done under autho