Select Page

University of South Carolina School of Law
Fox, Jacqueline R.

Three types of Torts:
1) Intentional torts
2) Negligence
3) Strict Liability

Four elements of torts:
1) Fault
2) Intent
3) Damages
4) Causation

I. Intentional Interference with Person or Property
a. Intent
i. Does not need to be malicious
1. Must only be intent to affect a legally protected interest
ii. Measured by objectivity
1. Based on the surrounding circumstances, what could a reasonable person be assumed to know?
iii. Children are liable for only what they can be expected to know based age, intelligence, etc.
1. Garratt v. Dailey
a. Court held that the child pulled the chair from under the lady and that he knew that she was likely to try and sit there
iv. There is a difference between negligence and intent
1. Spivey v. Battaglia
2. This does not qualify as intent
3. He was negligent in not foreseeing the harm caused to her by his unlawful actions
4. Need to differentiate between substantial certainty (intentional) and foreseeable risk (negligence)
v. Mistakes
1. A person who does an act by mistake can still be guilty
a. There was still intent to do the act, they were just mistaken as to the circumstances or possible outcomes
2. Not a defense for trespass to property
3. Unavoidable mistakes still guilty
a. The reasoning is that the party that caused the harm between two innocent parties should still bear the consequences
4. Ranson v. Kitner
a. He shot the guys dog thinking that it was a wolf
b. However, he still intended to shoot it, still guilty
vi. In

3. McGuire v. Almy
a. The insane girl in a fit of terror hit her nurse one the head
b. The nurse was able to recover damages
vii. Transferred intent
1. Applies to the 5 trespass torts:
a. Assault
b. Battery
c. Trespass to land
d. Trespass to chattels
e. False imprisonment
2. Says that if an actor intends to cause any one of these five can still be guilty even if result was not his specific intent
3. Can transfer from person to person and tort to tort
4. Talmage v. Smith
a. Guy intended to hit one kid, but hit another
b. Still guilty because he intended to do an unlawful act by using unreasonable force, therefore result, although unintended was still bad
b. Battery
i. Definition
1. Battery is the unlawful, unprivileged harmful or offensive touching of another
ii. Elements:
1. Act – there must be an act by the defendant that caused the touching of the defendant
2. Intent – the defendant must have intended to commit the act
a. Wallace v. Rosen
i. The teacher did not intend to commit a battery, merely to get the lady’s attention
ii. In a crowded world, there is going to be a level of touching, esp. during a fire drill
3. Touching – the contact must be harmful or offensive
a. An innocent touch may be harmful if unaware of pre-exisiting injuries
i. In that case, defendant’s ignorance is no excuse