I. INTENTIONAL TORTS
i. Unless substantial certainty is realized that harm will occur from the action, there is no liability. Substantially certain = liability.
ii. Transferred Intent:
1. Person to Person: A intends to batter B, but ends up battering C = intent transfers.
2. Tort to Tort: A intends to scare B, but actually hurts B = intent to hurt transfers.
i. Action intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact and results in a harmful or offensive contact. Offensive contact is contact which is offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity
ii. If there is no fault, there is no liability for the action.
iii. Rule of 7s: if a child is under 7, there is no tort liability because the child isn’t capable of forming intent. New rule: case to case
iv. Insane: mentally insane people are still liable for torts as long as they have intent, but it doesn’t matter if a threat is imagined, they’re still liable.
i. Δ intends to put π in apprehension of an imminent bodily touching that would count as a battery or other trespassory tort AND Δ does put π in such apprehension. Intention of touching or substantially certain of touching.
ii. Any type of subjective objection is practical if the objection is expressed first. The π is liable for the full extent of harm, even if the harm goes beyond the intended harm. If the action is objectively offensive, it doesn’t matter what the Δ subjectively thinks about his action (whether it’s offensive).
iii. Conditional Assault: words offering a choice of tortious alternatives. This is a condition that cannot be imposed on someone where there is no legal right.
1. Ex: give me your wallet or I’ll punch you in the fact. (this is assault)
d. False Imprisonment
i. Defendant intends to confine plaintiff and actually confines plaintiff within boundaries fixed by defendant and plaintiff is either conscious of confinement or substantial actual harm. Boundaries are not fixed to a certain amount of area
ii. If there is a safe and reasonable means of escape, there is not false imprisonment.
iii. Shopkeeper’s Rule: If plaintiff is detained, defendant is not liable if confinement is privileged and defendant:
1. Acts in good faith (legitimate reason),
2. Takes no more time than is reasonably needed
3. Doesn’t make excessive threats or use excessive force.
iv. Plaintiff must show awareness of confinement unless plaintiff suffers physical harm, then he doesn’t have to be aware of confinement.
v. Confinement By Threats or Duress:
1. Threats or Demands: confinement by explicit or implicit threat or duress can be false imprisonment if the facts show confinement.
a. Ex: female is surrounded by 6 burly men accusing her of theft.
2. Assertion of Authority: submission to an officer’s assertion of arrest under colorable legal authority is sufficient to show confinement.
3. Duress of Goods: if person is confined because something of value (ie wallet) is taken from them and defendant refuses to return it.
e. Trespass to Land
i. Defendant directly enters or causes an entry upon the land of another and the entry is intentional. Property includes below the surface and a reasonable amount of air space above property.
ii. Intent means intent to enter the land that you actually enter. It’s not required that defendant knows or should know that the land he entered was someone else’s land, it’s still trespassing. Transferred intent applies.
iii. Nominal damages may be recovered even if there is no physical harm.
f. Conversion of Chattels
i. Chattel is a piece of property that is not real property.
ii. Defendant intends to exercise dominion over plaintiff’s chattel AND defendant actually did exercise dominion over defendant’s chattel. Dominion is fairly serious control or alteration to chattel or restricting access to chattel.
iii. Damages for the value (replacement) of the chattel that has been converted at that time. More serious offense than Tresspass to Chattels.
g. Trespass to Chattels
i. Intermeddling with a chattel of another person, and at times even dispossession, but something short of conversion. It is a matter of degree.
ii. Liability is based on actual damage, not value of chattel.
h. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
i. To recover damages, plaintiff must prove that:
1. Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly
2. The conduct was extreme and outrageous
3. The actions of the defendant caused the plaintiff emotional distress
4. The resulting emotional distress was severe (or even debilitating)
ii. Conduct is extreme and outrageo
nd people in charge of a child not their own may also use similar force taking into account child’s age, size, mental condition and the force used.
i. For consent to be effective, it must be to the particular conduct, or substantially the same conduct as which the Δ engages.
1. Actual consent: spoken or written
2. Effective consent: appearance and circumstances would lead a reasonable, objective observer to believe that π had consented (ex: pick-up game of bball)
1. Consent is not effective if the person lacks the mental capacity to give consent. For adults, consent is only effective if:
a. Condition substantially impairs capacity to understand harms and risks against benefit of conduct AND
b. Defendant must know of the incapacity
2. Also, consent is not effective if the person is in economic duress.
3. A doctor may extend an operation to remedy any abnormal condition in the area of original incision when patient is at the time incapable of giving consent and no one with authority to consent for him is immediately available.
4. If Δ was privileged to do the act, and an unexpected harm took place, the Δ is not liable because there was no intent. No intent = no liability.
iii. Minors may consent to touching appropriate to their age (not sexual touching) ex: touching in football game
iv. Medical Consent:
1. Doctor’s actions must be within the scope of the patient’s consent.
2. Doctor’s failure to operate within the limits of the patient’s consent may be brought as battery actions.
3. Informed Consent: claims involving the doctor’s obligation to provide info- must be brought as a negligence claim.
v. Consent to Illegal Acts
1. Majority Rule: Consent, even in illegal acts, may be used as a defense
2. Minority Rule: consent is never a defense to an illegal act
e. Public Necessity