Calo, Torts, AUTUMN 2016
INTRODUCTION
What is a Tort?
Definition: Civil wrong other than a breach of K for which the law provides legal remedy
Three Bases of Tort Liability:
1. Intentional: when you do something on purpose
2. Negligence: falling below societal expectations of standard of care
3. Strict Liability: held accountable even though no intent or negligence
Purpose of Torts:
1. Put a person back to the position they were in before the injury occurred
2. Deterrence – exercise reasonable care
3. Determine how to handle circumstances similarly in the future
4. Loss Distribution – Idea that there is going to be some people /organizations in society that are going to be in a better position to absorb the cost of accidents
5. Allocation – the correct people should pay for something be it the people most at fault or the ones we can deter or sometimes because it makes the most sense for that person to pay
Intent Transfers (Five Intentional Torts [not IIED])
If you want to do one tort and end up doing another tort, intent transfers
Battery- injury can be de minimis, does not have to be direct contact. defendant is responsible for whatever harm results (even if more than expected or intended)
Assault -vague, all about appearances, what does plaintiff think could really happen, fear is not necessary for assault, only anticipation; words are not enough for assault;
False Imprisonment – Restraining someone w/o legal justification; pltff must be aware at time, not necessarily remember it, having the right to arrest someone is not enough, crime itself must justify arrest
Trespass to Land
Trespass to Chattels
Spano v. Perini Corp
Blasting causes property damage
An individual who has sustained property damage cause by blasting my recover for his damages without a showing of negligence by the defendant
Hammontree v. Jenner
Epileptic seizure car crash into store
Liability of a driver, suddenly stricken by an illness rendering him unconscious, for injury resulting from an accident occurring during that time rests on principles of negligence.
INTENTIONAL TORTS
DAMAGES AVAILABLE: NOMINAL, COMPENSATORY, PUNITIVE
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
TRESPASS TO LAND
TRESPASS TO CHATTELS
Definition of Intent
Restatement 2nd of Torts §8A
The actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.
Notes:
a. Refers to the consequences of an act rather than the act itself, limited to the consequences of the act.
b. All consequences which the actor desires to bring about are intended, not limited to consequences that are desired, ALSO includes consequences that the actor knows are certain, or substantially certain and still goes ahead. As a consequence becomes less substantially certain, the actor’s conduct loses intent, and becomes recklessness, and then further it becomes ordinary negligence. [Spectrum of certainty – intentional-reckless-negligence
SPECIFIC HARM: Do NOT need to have desire or knowledge of a specific harm
Garratt v. Dailey (17)
Boy/chair
A party is liable for battery when he is SUBSTANTIALLY CERTAIN that his act will result in harmful or offensive touching or ACTING WITH PURPOSE towards the result
Wagner v. state (20)
State responsible for mentally ill man who injures woman in store
Intent to make contact that objectively would be harmful (not necessarily the harm itself) is enough for intent to be established
Spivy v. Battaglia (x)
After D intentionally put his arms around P she suffers severe neck and back pains and becomes paralyzed “surprise hug”
A party who acts with knowledge and substantial certainty that a particular result will follow is liable for all results flowing from his act regardless of how foreseeable or unreasonable. Reckless disregard is still negligence with PUNITIVE DAMAGES. Intent dressed in the garments of negligence.
Mistake Doctrine
D’s good faith mistake is irrelevant and D is still liable. No defense that D is mistaken about the identity of the property or person that he acted upon.
Ranson v. Kitner
Dog/wolf shooting
Good faith mistake is not a defense to intentional torts where the defendant intended the consequence of his act.
Talmage v. Smith [Example of trans
e intimately connected to the body as to be universally regarded as part of the person.
ASSAULT DEFINED
Requirements for ASSAULT:
(a) An act by the defendant creating a reasonable apprehension in π of immediate harmful or offensive contact to π’s person;
(b) Intent
(c) Causation
“Apprehension”: required to be “reasonable” apprehension. Courts do not protect plaintiffs against exaggerated fears of contacts
Damages: No requirements of damages. It is not necessary to prove actual damages to sustain a prima facie case for assault. If the case is otherwise made out, π can recover nominal damages. Most states allow punitive damages to be awarded where defendant’s actions have been malicious.
I de S et ux v. W de S
D (W DE S), while in front of the house belonging to P (I de S) and his wife of P, threw a hatchet at wife of P which missed her
A defendant may be liable in assault of a plaintiff, even though there has been no actual physical invasion of the plaintiff by the defendant.
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill
Assault claim when an employee made improper advances across the counter
The actual ability of the defendant to cause harmful or offensive touching is not a requirement for actionable assault.
Vicarious liability
Liability that a supervisory party (such as an employer) bears for the actionable conduct of a subordinate or associate (such as an employee) based on the relationship between the two parties
Conditional threats
Only assault if combined with unlawful demand
Ex: “I’ll punch you if you don’t cook for me” + threatening act is ASSAULT
words alone are not enough! But minimal action w known violent history works.
No assault for harm to third persons!
