Torts Outline
Steiner
A.
A
person acts with intent to produce a consequence if:
1.
the
person has the purpose of producing that consequence; OR
2.
the
person knows to a substantial certainty that the consequence will ensue from
the person’s conduct
a.
Garrett v. Dailey (battery)- boy moves chair and
plaintiff falls and breaks her hip, boy didn’t intend to break her hip, just to
make her fall; if it was proved when he moved the chair that he knew with
substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the
chair had been a battery would be established
B.
Battery
1.
An
actor commits battery if he acts intending:
a.
to
cause a harmful or offensive contact to person of other or a third person OR
b.
to
cause imminent apprehension of such contact AND
c.
harmful
or offensive contact actually results
2.
Elements:
a.
a
contact
b.
that
is harmful or offensive, and
c.
that
the defendant caused intentionally
3.
Essence
of battery is an offense to dignity involved in unpermitted
invasion of inviolability of person
4.
Not
necessarily any physical harm done to body or actual physical injury
5.
Includes
unpermitted and intentional contacts with things
connected to the body (clothing, cane) when done in an offensive manner
a.
Fisher case- Fisher went to a luncheon,
defendant took Fisher’s dinner plate and shouted he could not be served there,
Fisher was humiliated, intentional grabbing of plaintiff’s plate constituted a
battery, this was invasion of his person as would be an actual contact with the
body
b.
can
be an extension of the body (i.e. plate, cane, clothes, anything directly
grasped by the hand)
6.
A
bodily contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal
dignity
a.
must
be contact which is unwarranted by the social usages prevalent at the time and
place which it is inflicted
b.
since
it involves dignity, it is not necessary that the plaintiff’s actual body be
disturbed
c.
some
things are so intimately connected with ones body as to be regarded as part of
the person
d.
if
an object remotely attached to someone’s body can accomplish the offense this
object can be regarded in the same light
7.
You
can have a battery and not be aware of it
(i.e. plaintiff is in a different room at the time defendant commits the
battery)
8.
Generalized
knowledge is not enough for intent (Shaw
v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp)
a.
Corp. did not know with substantial certainty that second-hand smoke would
touch any particular non-smoker
C.
Assault
1.
An
actor is liable for assault if:
a.
he
acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the
other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such contact, AND
b.
the
other is thereby put in such imminent apprehension
2.
Every
battery does not include an assault
3.
Assault
is all about awareness
4.
Need
apparent ability for assault to occur, no assault when the defendant is too far
away to do harm
5.
Victim
must perceive harmful or offensive contact is about to happen
a.
if
attacked from behind or while asleep there is no apprehension and no assault
6.
Defendant
must desire or be substantially certain that actions will cause apprehension of
immediate harm or offensive contact
7.
If
A knows his gun is unloaded and points it at B, which causes apprehension, it
is an assault even though A neither had the intent nor the ability to harm B
8.
Words
alone do not constitute assault, need words with conduct
9.
Holloway v. Wachovia- defendant attempts to repossess
plaintiffs car and points a gun, cant commit an assault on a sleeping baby
because there is no apprehension (can commit a battery)
10. Vietnamese
Fishermen v. Knights of KKK-
group of KKK members attempted to intimidate local Vietnamese fisherman, a mile
away from fishermen’s docks the KKK hung a figure in effigy and fired a cannon,
fishermen were fearful but court found there was no assault because there must
be an apparent ability and opportunity to carry out the threat immediately, no
assault where the defendant is too far away to do harm
D.
Transferred
Intent
1.
Actor
shoots at A, hits B
2.
Actor
shoots intending to miss A, but hits A
3.
Applies
whenever both tort intended and resulting harm fall within trespassory
torts (battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to
chattels)
4.
Transferred
intent does not work for conversion and intentional infliction of emotional
distress
E.
False
Imprisonment
1.
Liability
for actor if:
a.
acts
intending to confine the other or a third person within boundaries fixed by the
actor;
b.
his
acts directly or indirectly result in such a confinement
c.
the
other is conscious of the confinement (awareness)
2.
Restraint
includes more than physical barriers or physical force (boundary does not have
to be 4 walls)
a.
threat
of force- when person attempts to go beyond the area in which the actor intends
to confine him
b.
duress-
sufficient to make the consent given ineffective to bar the action (more than
loss of job)
3.
Motive irrelevant for plaintiff’s prima facie
case
4.
Protects
an individual’s right to move freely from place to place as she sees fit
5.
Victim
must be aware of confinement
6.
Bounded
area:
a.
freedom
must be restricted, not mere inconvenience
b.
not
bounded if reasonable means of escape exists and plaintiff knows about it
c.
victim
must be confined in an area bound in all directions
d.
no
false imprisonment if plaintiff is free to proceed in some direction though it
may not be the desired direction
e.
bounded
area can be large, even an entire city
7.
Escape:
a.
the
person confined must act or imply to leave
b.
reasonable
means of escape preclude liability
c.
escape
is not reasonable if it requires the victim to be heroic, endure excessive
embarrassment or discomfort, or if the victim is unaware of this means of
escape
8.
Confinement
may be accomplished by:
a.
physical
barriers, or
b.
force
or threat of force against victim or victim’s family, others in presence, or
property
c.
defendant’s
omission when defendant has a legal duty to act
1.
A
invites B on boat and promises to bring A ashore when requested, B’s failure to
do so is false imprisonment
d.
improper
assertion of legal authority
1.
false
arrest by a fake cop
9.
Shopkeeper’s
Privilege- when a store owner or security guard detains a shopper suspected of
shoplifting and both the suspicion and manner of detention were reasonable
a.
defendant’s
desire to protect property might serve as a valid defense to false imprisonment
claim
b.
merchant
can lose privilege if excessive force is used or if detains shopper for an
excessive amount of time
10. Intent aspect- it is only necessary
for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant had the purpose to confine him or
her, or that the defendant was substantially certain that his conduct would
cause confinement; motive is irrelevant
11. Teichmiller v. Rogers Memorial
Hospital- plaintiff
“imprisoned” in an office by two others blocking door, she did not ask to leave
and was only detained for 3 minutes, she only speculated force would be used on
her – no false imprisonment
F.
Trespass
to Land
1.
Trespass-
interfering with your right to exclusive possession
2.
One
is subject to liability for trespass, irrespective of harm to a protected
interest of the other, if he intentionally:
a.
enters
land in the possession of the other, or causes a thing or third person to do
so, or
b.
remains
on the land, or
c.
fails
to remove from the land a thing which he is under a duty to remove
3.
Mistake
and good-faith does not negate intent
4.
Intent
to harm not necessary
5.
Nominal
damages inferred
6.
Plaintiff
must demonstrate that the defendants invasion was tangible
7.
Courts
allow property owners to protect the airspace above their land and the
subsurface below their lad only to an extent that the landowner can make
practical use of the space (“effective possession”)
a.
the
old rule was, he who has the soil owns upward unto heaven and downward to
perdition; with aircraft this rule is impractical
8.
Intent
remains an element of a trespass to land action. Plaintiff must prove that a defendant had the
purpose to invade her possessory right in land, or that
the defendant was substantially certain her action would do so.
9.
Not
necessary that a defendant be aware that he is on another’s land for plaintiff
to succeed, only necessary that the defendant enters the land in a volitional
fashion
10. Damages can be nominal, actual, and
substantial
a.
can
always get nominal damages in a trespass case (plaintiff can take someone to
court for just stepping on their land, vindication of rights)
b.
are
able to get actual damages
c.
contemptuous
damages- let the plaintiff recover but give him the lowest coin of the realm (a
penny)
11. Airborne articles: nuisance v. tr