TORTS I OUTLINE
Look for question that has two issues of different areas of torts (nag and intent IIED, or informed consent and.)
INTRODUCTION
Tort – A socially harmful conduct recognized by the law as sufficiently serious to support a cause of action by one party against another for monetary damages or injunctive relief
Goals of Tort Law
§ Administer justice
§ Serves as a deterrence
§ Serves as compensation
§ Serves as allocating risks (who’s going to be responsible)
————————————————————————————————————————-
INTENT (check out pg 50 of intro)
Intent – Includes not only the desire to bring about the results (specific intent), but also the knowledge or belief that certain results are substantially certain to follow. Can be found by either:
§ Purpose
§ Substantial certainty, or
§ Transferred intent
Age does not affect intent. Garratt v Dailey: 5 yr. old pulls chair of lady. D did not have purpose, but knew with substantial certainty P would fall
Mistake in fact does not negate intent. Still liable for any damages as a result of mistake.
Ranson – Shot dog thinking it was a wolf.
Directed Verdict: A motion asking the judge to conclude that after taking all inferences in favor of the non-moving party, that no reasonable jury could conclude that it is more likely than not that D was negligent.
————————————————————————————————————————-
INTENTIONAL TORTS
————————————————————————————————————————-
1. Battery: The intentional contact of another that is harmful or offensive
Intent
a. D acted with either the purpose or substantial certainty
Contact
a.
b. Contact does not need be of the person. Things attached to body can be battery, plus spitting.
c. Fisher – Hotel worker snatched plate from P
d. P does not have to be aware of contact. P under anesthesia would not be conscious yet could be battered by doctor. (would need witness though)
Contact is harmful or offensive
a. Harmful – in view or reasonable member of society
b. Offensive – to an ordinary person not unduly sensitive as to personal dignity
————————————————————————————————————————-
2. Assault: The intentional apprehension of an imminent or offensive contact, and victim is aware of the threat of contact
Intent
a. Intent to create apprehension; or
b. Intent to make contact
Apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact (reasonable)
a. Apprehension must be that moment, not tomorrow.
b. Words alone will not be sufficient for assault
c. Slocum – “You stink me” not an assault.
Awareness of threat of contact
a. Contact is not necessary.
————————————————————————————————————————-
3. False imprisonment: The intentional confinement of another, who is aware of the confinement.
1. Intent
a. D must intent to confine (subjective test
2. Confinement
a. Physical action or threats can confine
3. Awareness or Harm
a. If P does not know then no tort. (objective test)
b. Example: P locked in classroom, but is asleep entire time. Proff comes back and unlocks door and P still sleeping. NO TORT
§ *Damages and unreasonable conduct not part of this tort
§ *You can used transfer intent in this tort
§ *D liable for injuries to P during reasonable escape
————————————————————————————————————————-
4. Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED): Intentional conduct that is extreme and outrages, which causes severe emotional distress
1. Intent (3 ways)
a. Desires to cause P emotional distress; or
b. Knows with substantial certainty; or
c. Recklessly disregards high probability the emotional distress will occur
2. Conduct extreme and outrages
a. D’s conduct goes beyond what s tolerated by society (objective test)
3. Causal connection between wrongful conduct and emotional distress
4. Emotional distress must be severe
a. P must suffer sever emotional distress. Must show
b. Public Policy – Don’t want to open gates for all kinds of torts, because people get feeling hurt.
c. Must be emotional damages
————————————————————————————————————————-
5. Trespass to land: The intentional, unauthorized entry onto property of another
1. Intent (3 ways)
a. Intentionally enter P’s land, w/o permission
b. D remains on land w/o permission, even if they entered with under right
c. D puts object on land, or does not remove object, w/o permission.
2. Unauthorized/unlawful
a. It is not unlawful if necessary to stay on land, even w/o consent
b. Example: Major storm at sea. Boat has right to stay docked
3. Entry into property
a. Entry can be by walking, Particles in air, or entry into air space immediate to property
4. Land of a
xpressed
a. Consent can be limited in scope. If D’s actions exceed consent by totally doing something different then authorized, there is a cause of action. (Mohr v. Williams – D had consent to operate on left ear, but not right ear.)
2. Implied-in-fact
a. Burden shifts once implied consent is established. It is up to the P to say no consent. (O’Brien v. Cunard – P gave implied consent by standing in line for vaccination)
3. Implied by law
a. Emergency privilege for medical care w/o consent if:
i. Patient unable to give consent (unconscious, drunk, mentally ill)
ii. Risk of serious bodily harm if delay
iii. Reasonable person would consent to treatment under circumstances
iv. This person would consent to treatment under circumstances
Ineffective Consent
§ Misrepresentation in fact.
§ Drug and alcohol may invalidate consent. (criminal acts)
§ Duress and fraud, abusive of power will invalidate consent.
§ D lacked capacity to consent
§ D exceeded the scope of consent
————————————————————————————————————————-
2. Self-Defense: Gives one the privilege to use reasonable force to prevent threatened harmful or offensive contact or confinement. D must prove defense (except police)
§ Retaliation
o No privilege for battery after threat is gone.
o Original aggressor may become victim, when he retreats and the original victim still comes after him/her
§ Reasonable belief
o When a person believes force necessary to protect self, even if mistaken, it is still complete defense (objective)
o Ranson v. Kitner rule does not apply here because of ‘self-preservation first law of nature.’
§ Provocation
o Majority – Words that instigate are not a privilege to self-defense
