Torts Final Exam Outline
Chapter 2. Intentional Torts
a. Intent to Contact
i. Waters v. Blackshear-Firecracker in Shoe Case
1. Battery requires that the actor intended to cause a contact that is harmful or offensive. Freedom from intentionally inflicted harmful contact is the interest the law is trying to protect.
2. The interest is different from the harms suffered. The actor need not intend the harms suffered if the actor intended the contact.
ii. Polmatier v. Russ-Crazy Man Found Naked in the Woods
1. The plaintiff must prove the defendant acted. An act is an external manifestation of the actors will.
2. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant intended for the act to cause a harmful or offensive contact.
3. If the defendant’s personal characteristics do not prevent the defendant from exercising his will or forming an intent, they are irrelevant.
4. Defendant stated he did not intend the act because he was mentally ill. You can still make a choice, even if it is a crazy choice. Only time you do not intend the act is if it is a seizure or you are asleep.
b. Intending contact that is harmful
i. Nelson v. Carroll
1. A battery may occur directly through an intentional contact (hitting someone on the head with a gun) or indirectly (bullet leaves a gun accidently as you hit something with the gun)
2. If the intent requirement is met, liability extends to unintended and unforeseeable consequences
c. Intending a contact that is offensive
i. Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications, Inc.-Blowing Smoke in Face
1. Battery includes intent to cause offensive contact
2. Offensiveness of a contact is determined by an objective test of what would offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity
ii. Andrews v. Peters-Knee Tapping Incident
1. For intentional torts, defendant need not intend the contact to be harmful, may intend only a practical joke and may honestly believe that the act will not harm the plaintiff, but if the contact is intentional and harmful or offensive, that act is a battery.
iii. White v. Muniz-Old Woman, Diaper Change
1. In dual intent (minority) jurisdictions, the defendant must intend both:
a. That the act will cause a contact
b. That the contact will be harmful (or offensive)
d. Damages for Intentional Torts
no assault because Ackerley could not have been immediately assaulted.
c. Transfer of Intent Among People and Between Torts
i. Hall v. McBryde-Accidental Boy shot in Gang Shooting
1. One who acts intending an assault is liable for battery if a harmful or offensive contact occurs. One who acts intending a battery is liable for assault in apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact occurs.
2. Transferred Intent: states that a batterer is liable for any harm that ‘directly or indirectly results’.
III. Defenses to Assault and Battery
i. Arises when a person voluntary relinquishes the right to be free from harmful or offensive contact or imminent apprehension of such contact
ii. McQuiggan v. Boy Scouts of America-Paperclip Game
1. An actor may relinquish his or her right to be free from harmful or offensive contact.
2. Consent prevents the existence of a tort.