Torts Outline
Professor Anderson
UT Law
Spring 2012
BATTERY – an intentional touching (actor desires to cause or is substantially certain his actions will cause) which is harmful or offensive.
· Transferred intent is OK (actor intends to harm one person and actually harms another)
· Bodily harm – any physical impairment of the condition of another’s body, or physical pain or illness
· Offensive – a reasonable person in the circumstances of the victim would find the particular contact offensive
o Even if D’s motives are good, if he touches P against her will, this is a battery.
· If a D is guilty of battery, he is liable for ALL of the resulting harm – this stems from the intentional tort culpability (not the same for negligence).
· Contact need not be direct touching. Has been extended to objects closely associated with the victim as well.
Ghassemieh v. Schafer
Defendant, 13 yr old girl, pulled chair away from plaintiff, her teacher, as she was about to sit down, injuring plaintiff’s back. Court says that battery, an intentional tort, and negligence are not mutually exclusive even though it could not hear the case because this specific objection was not raised at the trial court.
Garratt v. Dailey (Supreme Court of Washington 1955)
D, 5 yr old boy, moved lawn chair away from P as she was sitting down. On remand, trial judge found D guilty of battery because he inferred intent from sequence of events.
Note: Not all courts would impose battery liability to a child as young as Brian in this case.
RELAXED INTENT REQUIREMENT – White v. Univ. of Idaho
D was found guilty of battery (pretending to play piano on P’s back) even though intent to cause harm was not present; only intent to touch.
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc. (Supreme Court of Texas, 1967) D snatched a dinner plate away from African-American P at a country club luncheon. D was guilty of battery – physical contact need not occur so as long as there is contact with clothing or an object closely identified with the body.
Important – This can also be read as an offensive touching case.
ASSAULT – an intentional threat or attempt, coupled with apparent ability, to do bodily harm to another, resulting in immediate apprehension of bodily harm. No contact is necessary.
· D must act with purpose to cause apprehension or be substantially certain that apprehension will result.
· Apprehension – the perception of anticipation of a blow
· Circumstances may suffice to make words actionable as an assault if they reasonably cause the victim to fear an imminent contact
Vetter v. Morgan (Court of Appeals of Kansas 1996)
Vetter was in the right hand lane at a stoplight when a car driven by Gaither pulled up next to her. Morgan, a passenger, screamed vile and threatening obscenities at her and the driver revved the engine, moving the car back and forth. When the light changed green, the car driven by Gaither veered into Vetter’s lane, struck her car, causing her van to strike the curb and her head to hit the steering wheel and snap back.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT – the intentional, unlawful, and unconsented restraint by one person on the physical liberty of another
· Plaintiff must prove that he was aware of the confinement or that the confinement caused actual harm
o If there was a reasonable means of escape, P must have reasonably believed he was confined
· A reasonable alternative means of escape negates a confinement
Herbst v. Wuennenberg (Supreme Court of Wisconsin 1978)
Plaintiffs stood in the vestibule near the mailboxes of Wuennenberg’s building, reading the names registered to vote at the address and comparing them with the names on the mailboxes. W instructed them to leave, and then told them to wait while she called the police and positioned herself in front of the door. Plaintiffs did not ask her to move. D was not liable – false imprisonment may not be based on a person’s unfounded belief that he was restrained.
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Prima Facie Elements
1. Outrageous conduct by D
2. D’s intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing
a. This is the only intentional tort we’ve studied where recklessness meets the intentional qualification.
3. P’s severe or extreme emotional distress
4. Actual and proximate causation of emotion distress by D’s outrageous conduct
Eckenrode v. Life of America Insurance Co. (7th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1972)
Plaintiff’s husband was a victim of accidental homicide and his death met all the qualifications of his life insurance policy, which promised $5000 immediately. Court of Appeals held that P met elements of IIED claim, reversing trial court’s failure to state a cause of action. Reasoning: Bullying tactics abusing authority; outrageous conduct to a person of ordinary sensibilities; economic coercion was aimed at the very thing insured against, and the defendant was on notice that plaintiff would be particularly vulnerable to mental distress by reason of her financial plight
Dana v. Oak Park Marina (Supreme Court of NY, 1997)
Marina installed video cameras in in rest rooms, which include changing areas, shower facilities, and toilets. About 150 to 200 female patrons and guests in various stages of undress without their knowledge or consent; that the videotapes were viewed by defendants and others and displayed to others for purposes of trade. Held: Cause of action stated for reckless infliction of emotional distress.
Howell v. NY Post Co. (NY Court of Appeals, 1993)
NY
o Other view: Third party only has a right to defend another if the other person was actually privileged to defend himself.
Tatman v. Cordingly (Supreme Court of Wyoming, 1983)
60 yr old and 20 yr old got in a fight. 60 yr old filed an action for battery; 20 yr old claimed self defense. Trial court did not instruct the jury on the objective standard of self defense. Jury found for D. Court of appeals said the error was harmless.
Katko v. Brine (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1971) – Defense of Property (not defense of home – which is protected)
RULE: The only time setting a spring gun is justified is when the trespasser is committing a felony of violence or a felony punishable by death, or where the trespasser was endangering human life by his act.
· Note: Some jurisdictions broaden common law privilege of defense of property to allow owners to use deadly force under certain circumstances – even those jurisdictions do not allow weapons like in Katko.
Defense of detention to investigate (Teel v. May Department Stores Co.)
a) a store has right to detain for reasonable amount of time w/ probable cause
b) but only long enough to recover goods and/or call authorities
c) no right to hold until confession given (can't continue after recovery)
NEGLIGENCE
Five Elements of Cause of Action (Prima Facie Case)
a. Defendant had a duty to conform its conduct to a specific standard (ordinary or reasonable care)
b. Defendant’s conduct failed to conform to the appropriate standard (breach of defendant’s duty or substandard conduct)
c. Defendant’s substandard conduct was a factual cause of the plaintiff’s injuries
d. Defendant’s substandard conduct was a “proximate” or “legal” cause of the plaintiff’s injuries
e. Plaintiff must prove actual damages.
Two Components in determining if D exercised reasonable care:
· Fact-finder (usually jury) must determine was the D actually did
· Fact finder must evaluate the defendant’s behavior to determine whether it was reasonable under the circumstances (foresight standard)
