Select Page

University of Oregon School of Law
Weiner, Merle H.

Weiner Torts Fall 2016

Intentional Torts



Requires volition

Intent to touch
Intent to harm or offend

Can be shown either through (1) purpose or (2) substantial certainty that acts would harm or offend (knowledge)
Transferred intent / Extended Liability Rule

Meant to harm one person and end up harming another / touching something in contact with the person

Results in harmful or offensive touching

What would be offensive to the reasonable person

Contact presumed to be offensive if one does not consent to the touching: Cohen where woman didn’t want male nurse

Particulate touching (smoke); Extension of physical self (spitting in food)

Potential Issues

Age not a factor, but goes towards proving acted with knowledge or a purpose
Parent liable if:

Parent actually liable, usually negligence, knows child a danger
Parent encourages conduct
Parent employs child (?)
Relevant Statute

Insanity not a defense, but makes it harder to show person acted with volition or intent
Pl need not be aware




Volitional movement

Intent to create an apprehension of a harmful or offensive touching

Purpose or knowledge
Apprehension ≠ Fear, just apprehension of touching


Without significant delay
Factually Intensive

Apprehension of a harmful or offensive touching occurs

Objectively reasonable

Changes with special knowledge of the π

Potential issues

If conditional statement, no tort; however, if condition is yielding one tortious activity for another, there is a tort
Words generally not enough to cause apprehension, but can be (jump astraddle)
No assault if Pl not aware (asleep), or apprehends someone else being touched

False Imprisonment:



Knowledge or Purpose
Good Purpose doesn’t matter

Confines another

Limited range of movement (exclusion not suff.)
Physical restraints not necessary

Threat of physical harm
False assertion of legal authority

What a reasonable person would believe in the situation

Without lawful privilege
Within a limited place
For an appreciable time

Time is irrelevant to est prima facie case, but relevant to dmgs

And Pl either:

Is aware of the confinement
Is physically harmed

Potential Issues

Motive not part of the inquiry

Intentional Infliction of Emotio



Ownership or possessory interest in the land
An intentional and tangible invasion

Doesn’t matter if no intent to harm or if Def didn’t know land wasn’t theirs i.e. Single Intent
Intent to enter, not nec. Trespass
Intangible = noise, odor, light Nuisances

That harms the Pl interest in exclusive possession

Potential Issues

Intent from Assault/Battery transfers to Trespass, but not the other way: Single Intent vs. Double Intent


Injunctive Relief

Conversion of Chattels


Substantial exercise of dominion over chattels

Def will pay full value of chattel
Conversion serious enough to justify full value?

Extent/duration of conversion
Def’s intent to assert a right
Def’s good faith
Extent of the harm done
Expense and inconvenience caused

With intent to do so

Intent to steal not required

In a way that is inconsistent with the owner’s rights