Chadwick_Torts_Fall_2011
TORT
· is a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, for which the law provides a remedy. A tort is wrongdoing recognized by the law as grounds for a lawsuit. Harm to another person or entity seeking compensation for an infringement of some right.
· Purpose of the action
o (criminal law to vindicate public interests) tort law to vindicate and compensate for infringement of private interests.
· Burden of Proof
o in tort have to prove that it was more likely to happen than not likely
3 types of torts
· intentional torts
· negligence
· strict liability torts
· Development of Tort law
o Tort law is a predominantly a creature of the common law.
o It has been judge made law
Tort law was developed by a writ system in England when the king was in charge of everything.
Writ of Trespass (direct & forcible injuries)-
o forcible breaches of the kings peace. criminal action. Then was used to compensate P for the breach of peace, had to be some sort of force. P did not have to prove actual damages
o Five torts originally brought under writ of trespass
§ Assault
§ Battery
§ False imprisonment
§ Trespass to land
§ Trespass to chattels
Writ of Trespass on the Case. (other injuries)
o limited to injuries that were not caused by direct force, and P had to prove exact damages.
§ Nuisance
§ Conversion (does not have transfer intent)
§ Deceit
§ Negligence
§ Defamation
Hulle V. Orynge
· You may be protected if it is self-defense but not if in self-defense you hit a third party
Weaver V. Ward (military training exercise)
· D will not be liable as long as he can establish that it was without fault. The burden of proof was on D.
Brown v. Kendall (breaking up dog fight)
· Burden of proofing fault should be on the P in this case. New trial ordered so that P can have the burden of proof instead of D, also so that jury could receive proper instructions on intent and negligence
· It being brought under the writ of tresp doesn’t require strict liability
Cohen v Petty (sick while driving car)
· Judge directed verdict in favor of D in trial ct and ct of appeals held that the trial ct was right. P could not refute the defense
· This case was missing fault
· Need to prove that there was a failure to use due care
(strict liability eroding away as cases go on)
Spano v. Perini Corp. (blasting near car repair garage)
· Strict liability only imposed with some kind of invasion to premises in old rule. The ct took the opportunity with this case to adopt a new rule for strict liability. P has to prove that the activity was dangerous no matter how careful D was and that the activity caused the damage.
· Case important-seeing whole kind of development of tort. Strict liability
INTENT
· The word “intent” is used to denote that the actor desires to cause certain consequences to his act, or that he believes that the certain consequences are substantially certain to result from it. Intent is subjective. (read specific person’s mind, P has burden of proof)
o Ex: Intent is shoving someone in an elevator, negligence is not watching where you are going and stepping on someone’s foot.
o Intent has a higher level of culpability
Garratt v, Dailey (minor held liable)
· Trial ct said you had to show intent by proving purpose or desire to cause harm, and P appealed on the fact that intent can also be proven by showing that D knew that there’s a substantial certainty that the contact will occur.
Spivey v. Battaglia (hugs shy girl and paralyzes)
· Intent gives you difference between assault and battery (intentional) and negligence (unitntentional)
· Intent is subjective
· If only an offensive action was intended, but a harmful outcome became of it, it is battery.
· Normally whether it is battery or negligence doesn’t matter, bc the damages awarded could be the same despite which one is won. but since there was a statute of limitations on this case it does matter.
Ratner v. Kitner (wolf dog)
· Sued under law of conversion
o Intent of conversion is intent to interact with the chattel in a way that will leave the chattel impaired.
7 INTENTIONAL TORTS
· BATTERY
· ASSAULT
· FALSE IMPRISONMENT
· TRESPASS TO LAND
· TRESPASS TO CHATTELS
· INTENTIONAL INFLICITION OF EMOTIONAL
t someone when they are aware of the assault
Interest Protected: Freedom from apprehension (awareness or knowledge of something of the mind) of a harmful or offensive contact
· could have done a battery, but didn’t
If the actor intentionally puts another in apprehension (awareness of knowledge of something of the mind) of an imminent and harmful or offensive contact, he is subject to liability for an assault although he gives to the other the option to escape the contact by obedience to an unprivileged command.
May negate the attempt
· Not an assault if they say they are not gonna do it. “I would shoot you if that cop was not here” “I would hit you if the dean wouldn’t fire me”
· Cant tell someone to buy there safety by doing something you demand
· Threat of bodily harm in the future is never an assault
Words do not make the actor liable for assault unless together with other acts or circumstances they put the other in reasonable apprehension (awareness or knowledge of something of the mind) of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with his person.
· A standing near B, draws back his hand and threatens to knock B down if he does not stop talking. This is an assault.
Elements of assault
· Volitional act
· with the intent to put P in apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact
· result- P has to prove was placed in apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact
o imminence requires that the D have the apparent present ability to carry out the imminent battery
False Imprisonment
False imprisonment
occurs when D acts intending to confine P, with the result that P is confined to completed boundaries against his or her will
Interest Protected: freedom from confinement
