Select Page

Torts
University of Toledo School of Law
Martyn, Susan R.

TORTS
MARTYN
FALL 2012


I.        Intentional Torts
A.    §1. Intent
1.        A person acts with the intent to produce a consequence if
a.        (a) the person acts with the purpose of producing that consequence; or
b.       (b) the person acts knowing that the consequence is substantially certain to result
B.    §5. Liability for Intentional Physical Harm
1.        An actor who intentionally causes physical harm is subject to liability for that harm
C.    Harmful Battery
1.        §13. Battery: Harmful Contact
a.        Defendant intended to cause a harmful/offensive contact with another and contact directly or indirectly occurred. Harm occurs if there is physical injury
2.       §16. Character of Intent Necessary
a.        If an act is done with the intent of inflicting an offensive but not a harmful bodily contact, or of putting another in apprehension contact, and causes contact, the actor is liable for battery although the act was not done with the intention of bodily harm.
3.        Vosburg v. Putney (intent)
a.        A person acts recklessly in engaging conduct if
i.     The person acts with the purpose of producing that consequence; or
ii.     The person acts knowing that the consequence is substantially certain to result
iii.     Time and setting are important
b.       If the intended act is unlawful, the intention to commit is unlawful
i.     Time and place and the social expectations of the time and place
4.       Garratt v. Dailey
a.        Doctrine of Constructive Intent    
i.     Knowledge based consent
ii.     Knowledge to a substantial certainty that harm will result from conduct
iii.     As long as the defendant desires to cause the harmful or offensive contact and the contact occurs as a result of the defendant’s actions a battery is established
5.        Transferred intent
a.        If one person intentionally strikes at, throws at or shoots at another, and intentionally strikes a third person, it is a battery of the third person
6.       §2. Recklessness
a.        A person acts recklessly in engaging in conduct if:
i.     (a) the person knows of the risk of harm created by the conduct or knows facts that make the risk obvious to another in the person's situation, and
D.    Offensive Battery
1.        §18. Battery: Offensive Contact
a.        Defendant intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the physical person of another and such contact directly or indirectly occurred.
b.       A bodily contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity.
2.       §4. Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm
a.        Physical harm means the physical impairment of the human body or property. Bodily harm includes physical injury, illness, disease, impairment of bodily function, and death
b.       Any level of physical impairment is sufficient for liability; no minimum amount of physical harm is required.
3.        Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel
a.        Actual physical contact not necessary to constitute battery as long as there is contact with clothing or an object closely associated/identified with the body
4.       Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications, Inc.
a.        Tobacco smoke has physical properties capable of making contact
b.       Any level of physical impairment is sufficient for liability
i.     No minimum amount of physical harm is required
ii.     Any detrimental change (need not be major) in the physical condition of a person’s body or property counts as harmful impairment
E.     Assualt
1.        §21. Assault
a.        Defendant intended (a) to cause a harmful/offensive contact or (b) to cause imminent apprehension of harmful/offensive contact
b.       Mere words are not enough
2.       §29. Apprehension Of Immediate And Future Contact
a.        To make the actor liable for an assault, he must put the other in apprehension of an immediate contact.
b.       An act of infliction of a future contact does not make the actor liable for an assault
3.        §31. Threat By Words
a.        Words do not make the actor liable for assault unless other acts or circumstances put the other in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact
4.       Read v. Coker
a.        Threat of violence exhibiting an intention to assault and present ability to carry out threat to execution
b.       Words alone are not assault
5.        Beach v. Hancock
a.        Pointing a gun at a person in a threatening manner constitutes a battery or apprehension of immediate harmful bodily contact
F.     Trespass to Land
1.        §158. Liability For Intentional Intrusions On Land
a.        One is subject to liability to another for trespass, if he intentionally
i.     enters land in the possession of the other, or causes a thing or a third person to do so, remains on the land
2.       Ploof v. Putnam
a.        Doctrine of Necessity
i.     One assaulted and in peril of his life may run through the close of another to escape from his assailant
ii.     One may sacrifice the personal property of another to save his life or the lives of his fellows
G.    Trespass To Chattel
1.        §217. Ways Of Committing Trespass To Chattel; § 218. Liability To Person In Possession
a.        Defendant acts must intentionally damage the chattel, deprive the possessor of its use for a substantial period of time, or totally dispossess the chattel from the victim
2.       Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation
a.        Damage done to dock by boat during storm needs to be paid for by captain of boat
H.    Conversion
1.        Defendant intentionally took control over personal property of the plaintiff that seriously interfered with the right of the plaintiff to use the personal property
2.       Plaintiff need not show actual harm to recover
I.       False Imprisonment
1.        §35. False Imprisonment
a.        (1) An actor is subject to liability to another for false imprisonment if
i.     (a) intentionally confines plaintiff
ii.     (b) against the plaintiff’s will
iii.     (c) the plaintiff is aware of the confinement
2.       §36. What Constitutes Confinement
a.        (1) To make the actor liable for false imprisonment the confinement must be complete.
b.       (2) Must have no reasonable means of escape
3.        §40. Confinement By Threats Of Physical Force
a.         The confinement may by a threat to physical force to the other's person immediately upon attempting to go beyond the area in which the actor intends to confine him.
4.       Whittaker v. Sanford
a.        On a boat – no reasonable means of escape
5.        Rougeau v. Firestone
a.        Implied consent to stay by never revealing he wanted to leave
6.       Coblyn v. Kennedy’s
a.        Any genuine restraint is sufficient to constitute imprisonment
b.       Shopkeeper’s privilege
i.     Grants an employee the authority of law to detain a customer to investigate the ownership of property in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable period of time if the employee has a reasonable be

a defendant can retreat, they should
2.       Courvoisier v. Raymond
a.        Evidence shows that the circumstances surrounding the shooting lead him (reasonable man) to believe his life was in danger
3.        Offensiveness/unreasonableness are determined on the facts and circumstances of each case
4.       Katko v. Briney
i.     Can’t use force that may take a life or inflict serious injury unless justified
a.   Person has to be armed
b.  You have to occupy the residence
5.        Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. and Ploof v. Putnam
a.        Only reasonable force may be exercised in protection of property
b.       Force intended to inflict death or serious bodily injury is never reasonable to protect merely property
F.     Defense of Others
1.        §76. Defense Of Third Person
a.        A defendant can use reasonable force to protect a third party who reasonably appears to be in imminent harm.
b.       Some jurisdictions require that a third party must have actually been subjected to imminent harm
G.    Defense of Property
1.        §77 Defense of Possession by Force Not Threatening Death or Serious Bodily Harm, §79 Defense of Possession by Force Threatening Death or Serious Bodily Harm
a.        A defendant can use reasonable force to prevent intrusion or disposeession of property.
b.       A defendant must first ask a party to cease and desist from the interference with the property.
c.        A defendant can never use deadly force in defense of property
H.    Necessity
1.        Ploof v. Putnam
a.        Allows defendant to interfere with property interests of an innocent party in order to avoid greater injury
2.       Public v. Private Necessity
a.        Public Necessity – to protect the community
i.     One is privileged to enter land in the possession of another if it is, or if the actor reasonably believes it to be, necessary for the purpose of averting an imminent public disaster
ii.     Complete defense
b.       PrivateNecessity – to protect private interest
i.     Liable for damage to another’s property
ii.     Defendant has the right to interfere with a plaintiff’s property to avoid imminent private harm or injury arising from a natural occurrence
iii.     A defendant will have to pay plaintiff compensation for any harm done to the property while defendant was on it
I.       Discipline
1.        Sindle v. New York City Transit Authority
a.        A parent, guardian, or teacher entrusted with the care or supervision of a child may use physical force reasonably necessary to maintain discipline or promote the welfare of the child
J.      Shopkeeper’s Defense
1.        Grants an employee the authority of law to detain a customer to investigate the ownership of property in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable period of time if the employee has a reasonable belief that the customer has stolen