Select Page

University of Texas Law School
Anderson, David A.

Intentional Torts
·               Battery
·               Assault  
·               False Imprisonment
·               IIED
·               Defenses
·                     Consent
·                     Self-Defense and Defense of Others
1.             Duty
·                     Pender Rule: if [affirm conduct incr (>) risk of harm], then [a duty exists to use reas care to avoid causing harm] ·                           Test: Hand Formula
·                           Test: The “Reasonable Person”
·                     Bystander Rule (rescue): mere bystander incurs no liab where fails to act, however negl or intentional, to rescue another
·                     Nonfeas v Misfeas
·                     Alternatives
·                           Res Ipsa Loquitur
·                           Negligence per se
·                           Privity
·                     Negl Inflct Emotional Distress
·                     “No Duty” Exceptions
·                           Rescue/Good Samaritan (VT, some other): must act w/due care (duty) once undertaken rescue operations (else rest on oars)
·                           Accepted Work Doctrine
·                           Special Relationship
·                           Emotional Distress (NIED)
·                           Pure Economic Loss
·                           Premises Liability
·                           Third Party Torts
·                           Vicarious Liability
·                           Immunities
·                                 Government Immunity
·                                 Public Duty  
2.             Breach
3.             Cause in Fact
·                     The But-For Test
·                     Limited-Purpose Substitutes
·                           Substantial Factor Test
·                           Alternative Liability
·                           Concerted Action
·                           Market Share Theories
·                           Lost Opportunity Doctrine
4.             Legal Cause   
5.             Damages  
·                     Collateral Sources
·                     Wrongful Death and Survival Actions  
·                     Punitive Damages   
·                     Contributory and Comparative Negligence  
·               Affirmative Defenses
·                     Apportioning Harm
·                     Avoidable Consequences and Mitigation   
·                     Imputed Contributory Fault   
·                     Statutes of Limitations   
·                     Statutes of Repose
·                     Express Assumption of Risk
Comparative Responsibility
·               Contribution and Indemnity
·               Joint and Several Liability
Other Issues
·               Common Law Strict Liability   
·               Medical Malpractice    
·               Product Liability
·               Trial Court Procedure
Intentional Torts
Tension: Negl (expans, gen form) v. IT (predict but narrow – just prot threats phys harm, where capacity to carry out immin)
Requires an act = tortfeasor “contracts his muscles” of his own volition
·                                    Not met: unconscious UNLESS caused unconsciousness
Intent: (1) purposed to bring about conseq, or (2) been “subst certain” (infer)
·                                    Not req = intent to harm, suff if intend cause unconsented invasion of rights of another
·                                    Std = objective (can be ascribed by actions)
·                                    Transferred Intent: intent trsfrs b/n (1) parties (A > B) and (2) other ITs (int 2 contact > apprehen = suff for Assault)
Diff b/n ITs = consciousness. no CoA for FI or Ass if P unconsc. Batt = consc not req b/c bod integ protected wh consc or not. 
DA – why should law impose risk on victim of assault, battery, etc?
·                                    R: (1) intentional, (2) touching, which is (3) harmful, or (4) offensive
·                                          Intent = (1) purposed to bring about conseq, or (2) if would have been “subst certain” (infer)
·                                                Met (Subst cert): Garratt – 5 yr old moved chair from woman
·                                                Not req = intent to harm, suff if intend cause unconsented invasion of rights of another
·                                                      Met (intend): Ghassemieh – pulled chair from teacher so she’d fall (purpose = joke = irrel)
·                                          Touching = intent put in motion anyth touches another OR touches sthg conn w/ or in contact w/ another
·                                                Met (indirect ok): Ghassemieh – student pulls chair from teacher in class
·                                                Met (indirect ok): Fisher – black man accosted by restaur owner – snatched plate from hand
·                                                Met: Leichtman – blowing cigar smoke in face of anti-smoking activist during radio talk show
·                                          Harmful = causes physical pain, injury, or illness (fear not req)
·                                                Met: touched while D unconscious (e.g. at dentist) – must provide recovery, D’s knowl at time irrel
·                                                Not Met: tap on shoulder (cf. piano teacher from behind and causes unforeseeable injury)
·                                          Offensive = offenses reasonable person’s sense of dignity (objective std b/o social norms)
·                                                Met: Italian vacationer kisses stranger on mouth on US street
Young Children’s liability: Cts are split
·                  Met: Garratt – infants are liable regardless of intent to cause harm (really about contact being suff)
·                  Not Met: DeLuca (OH) – child < 7 yrs old not liable for IT b/c incapable of moral decision-making ·                  Not Met: Horton (CO) - reject Garratt - here, infant need not intend or foresee but must apprec contact m/b hrmfl   Intent to touch v. intent to injure or offend: split ·                  Met: White v. University of Idaho- music prof liable for injuries playing keys on acquain

       § 38 – Actual or apparent physical barriers
·                                                Met: locked door, could be person if blocks door.
·                                          § 39 – Overpowering physical force or by submission to physical force
·                                                Not Met: Herbst -Old lady blocks door from 3 men by just standing there
·                                          § 40 – Submission to a threat of physical force (must have appar intent and ability to apply)
·                                                Met: threat w/ gun
·                                          § 40A – Submission to non-physical threat (duress = e.g. threat to property or immed family)
·                                          § 41 – Taking under custody under asserted legal authority (asserted = real or not)
·                                          Scope = confinement must be within boundary
·                                                Not Met: locked out of apartment (excluded, not confined)
·                                    Escape = Not Met (FI) if reas form of escape (open door, open window, etc.)
·                                          but prisoner not under oblig to try ALL aven of escape if reas fear that attempt > harm
·                                                Not Met: having to swim to shore from boat (not considered reasonable)
·                                    Policy: protects personal interest in freedom of movement
·                                    Hypo: suppose pulls gun and unloaded. they don’t know what’s in gun. using objective test.
on testing limits
·                  why not have to ask about gun being loaded? assume based on danger given knowledge
·                  what about toy gun? depends on circumstances, objective std, how obvious is toy, experience with guns.
IIED – like other intentional torts in most respects
·                                    it is however, an unusually restricted intentional tort, b/c in addition to showing that D IIED, P must also show two other things that weed out what otherwise is IIED in most cases
·                                          conduct causing ED must be intentional + extreme and outrageous
·                                                what is extreme and outrageous
·                                                      given how restrctive courts are with IIED, not surprisingly even less enthusiastic about NIED
Defenses to Intentional Torts: