TORTS OUTLINE
I. Development of Liability Based Upon Fault.
· Weaver v. Ward 1616
· The beginning of “defense.” Only if defendant could prove complete lack of blameworthiness
· Brown v. Kendall 1850
· The plaintiff now has the burden of proof
· Cohen v. Petty 1933
· recognizes absolute lack of fault, if utterly beyond agent’s control and unforeseeable
· Spano v. Perini Corp. 1969
· Potential for “absolute liability” under certain dangerous conditions.
II. Intentional Interference with Person Or Property
· Intent
· State of Mind about the results
· interested if intent to cause the forbidden result, contact. Did he know the bullet would strike plaintiff? Doesn’t matter what he hoped would result from it.
· Intent to injure.
· proof of intent to harm not necessary. Intending a practical joke could be enough.
· Garratt v. Dailey 1955 establishes the two-prong TEST FOR INTENT
· acting with willfully, with purpose, with design
· knowledge to a substantial certainty
· General Considerations
· 2 Part Test (Spivey v. Battaglia 1972, Garratt v. Dailey 1955)
· Mistake and Intent
· Mistake of Fact won’t negate intent (Ranson v. Kitner 1889)
· Insanity and intent
· Insanity won’t negate tortious intent as long as it doesn’t affect knowledge of actor (McGuire v. Almy 1937)
· Transferred Intent
· (Talmage v. Smith 1894); If one of the old torts is initiated but not completed, the intent used for that tort can be transferred to the completion of a tort on a third party.
· Battery
· Prima facie case
· Intent (purpose or knowledge) to cause contact (or transferred Intent)
· Contact
· Harmful – results in an injury
· Offensive – would be objectionable to a reasonable person. Unpermitted.
· Absence of consent
· Restatement of Torts (Second)
· Harmful Contact
· acting intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact or an imminent apprehension of such contact and
· a harmful contact directly or indirectly results
· Offensive Contact
· acting intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact or the apprehension of a contact and
· an offensive contact directly or indirectly occurs
· Rules for Battery from cases
· Touching of another in anger is battery (Cole v. Turner 1704)
· In a crowded world, some contact is to be expected, especially in certain circumstances (
ge by the plaintiff of confinement.
· Requires
· restraint against will ( Big Town Nursing Home, Inc. v. Newman 1970, Hardy v. LaBelle’s Distributing Co 1983)
· confined to a fixed, bounded area (Whittaker v. Sandford 1912)
· no reasonable means of escape
· unreasonable if it involves exposure (nakedness), material harm, or danger of harm to another. Most know of existence for escape to be reasonable. If escape route requires physical risk, and no risk to stay, then stay.
· Hopkins: If you came through door, leaving through window is unreasonable
· awareness of confinement (Parvi v. City of Kingston 1977)
· no legal justification (Enright v. Groves 1977)
· protected interest: Freedom against restraint of movement
· Direct physical restraint of another person against their will without adequate legal justification.
· May be restrained by acts or merely words which one fears to disregard. Holding possessions may restrain.
