INTENTIONAL TORTS
To prove a prima facie case against the defendant, plaintiff must prove:
Act by defendant:
The act required is a volitional movement
Intent
Intent may be either subjective or objective
i. Subjective: hard to prove b/c the goal must have been to bring about specific consequences
ii. Objective: actor knows with substantial certainty (through circumstantial evidence) that these consequences will result
Transferred intent
i. The intent to commit a tort against one person is transferred to the tort actually committed or to the person actually injured for the purposes of establishing a prima facie case
ii. Limitations: transferred intent may be invoked only if both the tort that are intended and the tort that results are one of the following
1. Assault
2. Battery
3. False imprisonment
4. trespass to land
5. trespass to chattels
Everyone is capable of intent; thus young children and mentally incompetent people will also be held liable for their actions
Causation:
The result must have been legally caused by the defendant’s act or sometin set in motion by him
Harm
BATTERY: LPI= freedom from unwanted bodily contact
Volitional act
Intent:
i. Subjective intent:
ii. Objective: actor knows with substantial certainty that an unwanted bodily contact will result
1. a reasonable jury could find that the D intended an unwanted bodily contact (through circumstantial evidence)
Causation:
i. The acts of the defendant were a substantial factor in the unwanted bodily contact
Harm
i. There was an unwanted bodily contact
ASSAULT: LPI= freedom from the apprehension of unwanted bodily contact
Volitional act
Intent:
i. Subjective: hard to prove b/c you have to get into a persons mind to know what they are intending
ii. Objective: Defendant knows with substantial certainty that his actions will result in the imminent apprehension of unwanted bodily contact of another
1. a reasonable jury could find that there was intent through circumstantial evidence
Causation:
i. The acts of the defendant were a substantial factor in the apprehension of unwanted bodily contact
Harm:
i. The acts of the defendant resulted in an apprehension of unwanted Imminent bodily contact
FALSE IMPRISONMENT: LPI= freedom of movement
ACT: an act or omission that on the part of the defendant that confines or restrains plaintiff to a bounded area
Intent:
i. Subjective:
ii. Objective: D knew with substantial certainty that act or omission would result in the confining or restraining of the Plaintiff to a bounded area
Causation:
i. D’s act or omission was a substantial factor in bringing about confining or restraining the P to a bounded area
1. reasonable jury test
Harm:
i. P must have actually been confined/restrained to a bounded area
Sufficient methods of confinement include:
i. Physical barriers, physical force, threats of force, failure to release, and invalid use of legal authority
Insufficient methods of confinement:
i. Moral pressure and/or future threats
Time of confinement: irrelevant how short the confinement is, what matters is that a confinement occurred
AWARENESS OF CONFINEMENT: P must know of the confinement or be harmed by it
Bounded area: means there must be no reasonable means of escape known to plaintiff
Shopkeeper may use reasonable force to detain for a reasonable time if they have a reasonable belief of a theft or likewise.
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: LPI= freedom from extreme a
ontact sports
2. ordinary incidental contact (on bus/subway)
3. Implied by law:
a. When action is necessary to save a persons life or some other important interest in person or property
Exceeding consent: if D exceeds the scope of consent and does something substantially different he may be liable
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES
i. Informed consent
1. In the case of a physician, one of the professional standards which must be met is that the risks of a proposed treatment, likelihood of success (or failure) and all alternatives must be adequately disclosed to the patient before he consents to that treatment. Older cases held that the doctor’s failure to adequately make such a disclosure vitiated the consent given, and paved the way for a battery action; more recently, courts find that lack of full disclosure constitutes professional negligence
SELF-DEFENSE:
Reasonable belief that harm is imminent
If so, reasonably necessary force is permitted in accordance with the circumstances to protect against injury
i. One need not attempt to escape, but modern trend imposes a duty to retreat before using deadly force if this can be done safely, unless the actor is in her home
ii. SD is generally not available to initial aggressor
iii. SD may extend to third party injuries (while defending herself); she my be liable if she deliberately injured a third party in trying to protect herself
Defense of others: may use reasonable force
Mistake: A reasonable mistake as to the existence of danger is allowed
If more force than necessary is used then defense is lost (question for the jury)
DEFENSE OF PROPERTY:
