Torts Outline – Fall 2005
TOPIC/CASE
DEFINITION/RULE
ELEMENTS
EXCEPTIONS
I.
INT’L TORTS
INTENT
-Only requires intent to act, not intent to harm with malice
-Purpose of causing result…Knowledge that result is substantially certain to occur.
1. Needs to be purpose or knowledge of substantial certainty
2. Needs harmful/offensive contact (objective)
3. Result has to be harmful/offensive
Garret v. Dailey(Little boy pulls chair out from fat aunt)
-Intent is present when the person acts knowing with substantial certainty that the harmful contact will occur from their conduct
-There is no difference b/t the purpose of causing the result and the knowledge that the result is substantially certain to occur if I act in a certain way.
Spivey v. Battaglia
(Tries to hug coworker and she pinched a nerve)
-If result is not a reasonably foreseeable consequence from a reasonable person, no liability for int’t tort
Ranson v. Kitner
(Shot dog thinking it was a wolf)
-Liability not negated by honest mistake; Establishes transfer of intent.
-Specific intent not required, only general intent.
McGuire v. Alm
(Insane person hit nurse in head with chair leg)
-Insane person can commit an int’l tort (battery in this case)
-Policy places a responsibility on caretaker to prevent problems
Talmage v. Smith
(Guy throws stick at trespassing kids)
-If a guy intends to harm one person, but hurts another, then he is still liable for int’l tort (transferred intent)
-Either general or specific inent will fulfill requirement for int’l tort
-Mistake is never an
able person could see harmful contact; and
4. Threat must be true and actual
1. Act
2. Imminent apprehension of offensive bodily contact
3. Intent
4. Cause
5. Lack of Consent
Western Union v. Hill
(Woman wanted her clock fixed – “love you and pet you”)
-There can be no assault unless there is an apparent ability to carryout a threatened contact
– Reasonable belief of apprehension by person in PL’s position, but use objective standard in some cases to determine if it could have been carried out.
-Does not occur until state of mind of wrongdoer reaches the pint of causing an action that will cause imminent apprehension
-No ability to carry out assault means no assault
-Words are not assault, unless accompanied with an action creating apprehension (i.e. reaching in pocket while talking about gun)
