Select Page

Villanova University School of Law
Turezyn, Kathleen M.

I)                 INTENTIONAL TORTS
                                                   i.      TWO ELEMENTS:
1.      Mindset – Desire to cause OR Substantially certain of consequences
a.       Must be a SUBJECTIVE evaluation of actor’s knowledge
2.      Action – A contortion of the body/a willed movement (not necessarily voluntary)
a.       Mindset must coincide with the voluntary action
                                                 ii.      Does not matter if:
1.      There was a time lapse between the action and the incident, as long as intent was there
2.      The tortfeasor was under duress
a.       Does not matter for what reasons you did it for
                                                                                                                           i.      Practical jokes still count
4.      Does not matter if the extent of harm was NOT foreseeable
                                                iii.      Garret v. Dailey (5 yr old pulls chair)
1.      If the kid was substantially certain that pulling away the chair would result in plaintiff falling down, he had REQUISITE INTENT (just like an adult)
2.      Age would be a factor in determining knowledge and understanding though
a.       Court has decided that below a certain age kids should not be held liable (infants)
                                               iv.      Spivey v. Battaglia (co-worker bear hug)
1.      Plaintiff did not have intent b/c he was not SUBSTANTIALLY CERTAIN that co-worker’s face would become paralyzed
a.       Case differentiates intent and negligence
b.      Subjective evaluation of knowledge of substantial certainty
                                                 v.      Ranson v. Kitner (shot a dog, he thought it was a wolf)
1.      A mistake of fact does NOT negate intent
a.       Defendant intended to kill the object, thus it is irrelevant he thought it was a wolf rather than a dog
                                               vi.      McGuire v. Almy (tortious insane person)
1.      Insane people can be held liable for torts
a.       As long as requisite intent can be established
2.      POLICY: courts do not want to get involved in the “insanity quagmire” of the criminal courts
                                              vii.      Wallace v. Rosen (school fire drill, mom falls down stairs)
1.      Time and place of incident important in determining liability
2.      Personal contact inevitable during a fire drill
3.      Act must be rude, insolent, or angry
                                            viii.      Talmage v. Smith (man blinds boy by throwing stick)
1.      Transferred Intent
a.       Transfers between PEOPLE:

er in a classroom = offensive
1.      finder of fact determines whether contact was offensive UTC
2.      Objective evaluation of offensiveness (Would reasonable person in the culture be offended?)
                                               iv.      Singular Harmful Behavior
1.      Contact SHALL be battery if actor had knowledge about a specific condition of another
a.       EX. Dole’s prosthetic hand
                                                 v.      Singular Offensive Behavior
1.      Contact MAY be a battery if actor had knowledge about a specific phobia or disposition of another
a.       EX. Trump’s germ phobia (legit but weaker)
2.      TWO COMPETING VIEWS re singular offensive conduct
a.       No social value in allowing D to offend people when they have knowledge that it will offend
b.      Could change the fabric of society, everyone could be put on notice about what is offensive             
                                               vi.      Can come about DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY
1.      Ambiguity re cigarette smoke, blinding light, etc. can be a battery
2.      All batteries: