Torts Outline

Torts Outline

On Essay Exams Ask

What parties can you use in your response?
Law you’re allowed to use
Situations you’re allowed to look at

· Go to the bottom of the question first because that’s where the issue it.
· Make sure every conclusion in your answer is within these 3 parameters.
· Use law before facts
· Don’t need to include end conclusion because you begin with a conclusion.
· Don’t summarize at end of tort
· 3 Biggest Mistakes:
o Not organizing the material
o People get the right law but don’t apply it correctly
o Don’t allocate time correctly.
· Work methodically through the rule, by using elements.

I. Battery: An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.
A. Act
1. Inaction is not an act unless:
1. One has a legal obligation to act
2. one has made the victim’s situation worse
B. Intending to cause a harmful contact with the person of another or apprehension
1. Who can intend? (applies to all intentional torts)
a. Reasonable adults
b. Children under 6 (Garratt v. Dailey)
1. Look to age, experience, capacity, and understanding(only discuss if determining constructive knowledge)
2. dealt with 5 year old (Garrett v. Dailey)
3. If someone has knowledge that their actions would most likely cause the injury or embarrassment to another person, they are guilty of battery, even if the injuries and embarrassment caused was not their intent. (Ex. In Garrett v. Dailey the defendant did not know that plaintiff was about to sit down when he moved the chair but he did know she would attempt to sit- purpose has to be to make her fall (constructive knowledge)- he just has to want to; doesn’t have to know he will succeed.)
c. People with mental illnesses who are capable of
entertaining intent. (legally can intend) (McGuire v. Almy)
Court applied realism because they rest their decision on public policy- realism says different judge might come to a different understanding of the meaning of the rules because each judge has a different set of moral values.
1. If you are capable of forming intents, then legally,
you can intend as well, no matter how disturbed your brain may be.
An insane person is equally liable for torts as a
normal person is if the insane person is capable
of and has entertained intent to cause damage.
Only have to argue if it involves an insane person
that is not capable of forming intents.
a. Value: Liability for acts done
b. Link: If the court agrees with this value, then it should read the rule my wayà people with mental illnesses can intend
c. SPD: Society has an interest in deterring people with mental illnesses from causing harmful contact to ot