Bauman Torts I Fall 2004
Outline
I.
Intentional
torts: FITTED CAB
a.
Why are most
cases brought? Liability insurance
b. To establish prima
facie case for intentional tort liability - prove 3 elements:
i.
Act by D
ii.
Intent and
iii.
Causation
c.
Intent:
i.
Act with the
purpose of causing contact
ii.
Knowledge
substantially certain to occur -Garrett v. Daily
1.) false imprisonment
a.
intent to confine
someone against their will and the other is conscious or harmed by it.
Elements:
i.
Intent to confine
п, п in fact completely confined
ii.
Action
iii.
Causation- P is
aware of the confinement or suffers actual injury from the confinement
b. confinement - direct restraint of P or his physical liberty w/o
adequate legal justification
c.
Problem: were
they confined? That is the issue…
d. Teich Miller- you must ASK to leave. Can’t assume, but
ask or else there is no FI.
e.
П has burden
of proving the Δ confined her
2.) trespass to land
a.
intent to enter
land owned by someone else or cause a third person or thing to enter the land
and fails to remove it
b. actual damages are not necessary because enforces
boundary policies…theory is so that ppl aren’t intruding into other land
c.
Amphitheater:
smoke isn’t a trespass to land because it’s not a tangible invasion. Ownership
is from anything below or above it
d. Traditional view: an actor commits trespass to land
when he intentionally enters or causes an entry onto the land of another.
i.
Entry can be made
above or below through the surface of the land
ii.
Ex. shooting a
gun over your land to duck hunt
iii.
Actual harm to
the land is not required
1.
vindicates owners
exclusive possession- that’s what trespass is supposed to protect: there is
injury in right of exclusive possession when ppl come onto your land
e.
Modern New rule:
intangible forces can be evasive but must violate legally interest of the
п. More than a ray of light.
i.
Trespass
interferes with the owner’s right to exclusive possession
ii.
Trespass can
occur by means of a physical invasion of microscopic particles if the result is
in interference with the right of exclusive possession.
iii.
When invasion
involves microscopic particles, the п must show actual damage to the
property.
f.
Bradley: intent
isn’t hostile intent; it is enough to bring about a result: bringing foot over
property line. A good nature practical joke can be trespass. Enter to land can
be indirect or direct, damages must be actual and substantial.
g. Can’t use “mistake/good faith” as a defense to
trespass
3.) trespass to chattels
a.
intentional act
b. Prima facie case:
i.
Δ interferes with п right of possession
ii.
Intent to perform
the act- mistake is no defense, but intending to do the act of interference is
sufficient
iii.
Causation, and
iv.
Damages
c.
using or
intermeddling with another person’s chattel
i.
dispossess (I
don’t have it anymore) the other of his chattel
ii.
chattel is impaired
iii.
possessor is
deprive of use of substantial time
iv.
bodily harm is
thereby caused to a person in which S has a legally protected interest
d. CompuServe: intermeddling: intentional bring physical
contact with the chattel; п can get cause of action without showing substantial interference with its right to
possession of that chattel.
e.
Taking away of or
damage to tangible personal property
f.
Usually used when
the interference or damage is not serious enough to amount to conversion
g. Actual damage to or loss of use chattel required
h. Damages: value of loss of use or cost of damages to
the chattel
4.) emotional distress
a.
extreme and
outrageous conduct,
i.
Intent: Conduct must be intentional to cause severe
emotional harm: intentional or reckless.
ii.
causation
iii.
damages- severe
emotional distress
b. Intentionally causes severe emotional distress or with
recklessness regarding the infliction of such distress and severe emotional
distress results.
c.
causal connection
btw wrongful conduct and emotional distress
d. Transferred intent doesn’t work here: Caldor v. Bowen-
severity is measured by intensity and duration. Need more than cursing or
insult. Court will be harder if you take advantage of someone’s vulnerability
e.
Nickel: you just
have to have severe emotional distress- court wont take it easy if it’s the
boss
f.
Damages - how to
prove severe emotional distress? Physical symptoms - something not seen before:
Relationship. Missing work, inability to sleep, weight fluctuation. etc. severe
enough to make client see Dr. (may note symptoms non—pro missed/ if not. D might say P didn’t care enough
to see Dr.. or ran up damages by failing to see Dr. One shot at getting
compensation)
g. The “mere insult” is NOT outrageous conduct
5.) Conversion
a.
Conversion is
where you borrow and steal- wrongful exercise of dominion over the personal
property of another (taking, substantial use, altering, destroying, selling and
buying)…must be tangible
b. Prima facie case:
i.
Δ interfering with п right of possession in
the chattel that is serious enough in nature or consequence to warrant that the
Δ pay full value of chattel
ii.
Intent to perform
the act bringing about the interference with п right of possession
iii.
Causation
c.
Damages: Δ
must pay п the full value of the property at the time of conversion.
d. Wiseman- tow truck case- conversion: is where you
borrow and steal- exercise the dominion- you don’t have to intent to own it.
e.
What act
constitutes so serious to make actor pay full value? P.56
i.
Wrongful
acquisition (theft)
ii.
Wrongful transfer
(misdelivering)
iii.
Wrongful
detention (refusing to return to owner)
iv.
Substantially
changing
v.
Severely damaging
or destroying
vi.
Misusing the
chattel
f.
How to satisfy
the element of conversion:
i.
Took something that
belonged to someone else. What act constituted the conversion? Towing the truck
(Wiseman v. Schaffer- stolen truck, towed)
ii.
This act of
dominion of truck leads to loss of truck.
iii.
Δ isn’t
excused- he intentionally meddled with the truck- real owner didn’t give him
permission to do so.
g. Multiple factor test: different from notion of
elements of a cause of action- in order to have
6.) Assault
a.
Elements of
assault:
i.
An actor commits
assault if he acts intending
1.
to cause a
harmful or offensive contact OR
2.
to cause imminent
apprehension of such contact
3.
the actor has the
apparent present ability to inflict the contact
4.
apprehension of
harmful or offensive contact actually results
b. Use the reasonable person test:
i.
Apprehension of
immediate offensive touching
ii.
No way to have
actual damages because you are just afraid- must be aware of Δ acts
c.
Holloway: actual
damages not necessary and transferred intent is appropriate in assault
d. Words only are not enough- must be coupled with acts
e.
Must be a
reasonable apprehension
7.) battery
a.
Elements
i.
Intent
ii.
Contact
iii.
Harmful or
offensive
b. An actor commits a battery if he acts intending
i.
To cause a
harmful or offensive contact OR
ii.
To cause imminent
apprehension of such contact AN D
iii.
Harmful and
offensive contact actually results
c.
In order to
recover, you must have damages→tortfeasor is liable for all
damages resulting from harmful contact.
d. INTENT
i.
Garrett v. Daily-
substantially certain that a 6 year old will hurt this woman? S have purpose of
producing the circumstances. Mental retardation can be liable for intentional torts.
ii.
Shaw- smoking
case: 2nd hand smoke is not a battery
iii.
Transferred
intent (TI)- A meant to hit B but hit C. A still liable for C damages
e.
HARMFUL OR
OFFENSIVE CONTACT
i.
Can be intimately
connected to body- vicarious liability: Fisher v. Carrousell (plate)
ii.
Compensatory
damages- I lost my lunch because you knocked trey out of my hand
iii.
Punitive damages-
punishment: you were a jerk so we are going to teach you a lesson. Only when we
have wanton, malicious behavior (egregious)
iv.
v.
Objective
standard: reasonable person
vi.
Passing by in a
narrow space and gently touching them is not a battery
II.
Defense to
intentional torts:
a.
Consent:
nonverbal consent counts
i.
An objective
manifestation of consent forcloses a claim that might otherwise exist
ii.
Consent may be
shown by conduct ex vaccination
iii.
Consent bars
recovery if there is consent to the act done, even though there is no consent
to the resulting injury
iv.
The consent
obtained by fraud or concealment of important info is not effective
v.
Peterson: п
must have sufficient mental capacity to consent- minor, drunkards, incapacity
can’t consent to intentional tort. Patients must sign consent forms with
doctors.
vi.
Hackvard v.
vii.
Determine if P had capacity to consent (intoxicated,
mentally incompetent. children, class protected by law incapable of consent to
tortuous conduct: majority no person can consent to criminal act, modern trend
cannot consent to breach of peace, but can to other, tight v. prostitution)
viii.
Expressed- words
used negated by fraud
ix.
Implied- playing
football
x.
Consent to
contact in sports:
1.
by participating
in a sporting contest, one consents to the contacts normally a part of the game
2.
the limits of this
consent are important: does every contact that is outside the rules result in
battery?
3.
on the other
hand, is consent to “normal” illegal contact also presumed?
xi.
Consent to a
criminal act
1.
is effective and
bars recovery for injuries received from the act:
a.
the important
exception is where the criminal statute is designed to protect the class of
persons to which the п belongs
b. allowing consent as a defense would tend to frustrate
the purpose of the criminal statute
c.
three important
examples:
i.
statutory rape-
if 14 consents to sex with 25, it’s still a crime even though she consents-
bars her from bringing civil action for battery
ii.
illegal prize
fighting
iii.
voluntary
euthanasia
b. Self-defense:
i.
Use reasonable
force against someone else
&