Intentional Torts

Front 1

What is respondeat superior?

Back 1

The doctrine holding an employer or principle liable for the employee's or agent's wrongful acts within the scope of the employment or agency

Front 2

For intentional torts the burden of proof is always on the ...

Back 2

Plaintiff

Front 3

What are some defenses for respondeat superior?

Back 3

1. The employee wasn't acting in the scope of his job.
2. The employee did not committ the tort.
3. The employee was really an "independant contractor".
4. The plaintiff contributed to his or her own negligence.

Front 4

What are the three rules for shopkeeper's privilege?

Back 4

1. Reasonable suspicion the person shoplifted.
2. Reasonable amount of time.
3. Reasonable manner in which they are kept.

Front 5

Are incompetents/children responsible for their torts? Why?

Back 5

Yes, because it makes the people responsible for them pay better and closer attention.

Front 6

To show that the defendant committed a battery the plaintiff must show there was what type of touching?

Back 6

Harmful or offensive

Front 7

What is harmful touching?

Back 7

A touching is harmful if it injuries, disfigures, impairs, or causes pain to any other bodily organ.

Front 8

What is offensive touching?

Back 8

A touching is offensive if it would offend a reasonable persons sense of personal dignity.

Front 9

What if a person is hypersensitive? Does this change what would constitute harmful or offensive touching?

Back 9

No this does not change the liability for a battery. The only way this might change is if the defendant knew of the plaintiff's hypersensitivity.

Front 10

McGuire v. Almy

Back 10

An incompetent person is still liable for their torts.

Front 11

Ranson v. Kitner

Back 11

The guy thought he shot a wolf it turned out to be a dog. A mistake does not absolve liability.

Front 12

Garratt v. Dailey

Back 12

The intent neccessary for a battery to occur is when the person acts with knowlege of substantial certainty that the harmful contact will occur.

Front 13

Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel

Back 13

If a person harmfully or offensively touches an extention of the body (something your holding or carrying) the person is liable for battery. Black person had plate knocked out of his hand at conference.

Front 14

In assault it is required that the act create an apprehension of an ______ touching, _____ alone are not enough to constitute assault

Back 14

immediate, words

Front 15

What one of two things must the plaintiff must show in the intent to commit assault?

Back 15

1. Defendant intended to inflict a harmful or offensive touching on the plaintiff or a third person, or
(2) Put the plaintiff or a third person in apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive touching

Front 16

The apprehension requirement means that the plaintiff cannot complain of an assault unless she was aware of the threat at the time thereof

Back 16

In battery this is not the case. You can be battered and not be aware (sleeping or sedated)

Front 17

Would there be an assault if there were menacing gestures but the defendant's words negated any immediate threat?

Back 17

No, there wouldn't. Likewise if the defendant's words make it clear that some significant amount of time remains before the harm is inflicted, there is no assault

Front 18

Does a physical difference between the two parties or whether or not the plaintiff was frightened matter?

Back 18

No, the plaintiff only need by placed in apprehension of a touching, she doesn't have to be frightened. It is irrelevant whether she could escape or prevent the touching.

Front 19

Can words alone be enough to falsely imprison someone?

Back 19

They can. Threats of physical forece or words asserting legal authority are enough to falsely imprison someone without any physical movement.

Front 20

What test is used to determine if someone intentionally falsely imprisoned a person?

Back 20

The desire or belief in substantial certainty test.

Front 21

The intentional confinement by the defendant requires that the plaintiff be restricted to a limited area without knowlege of a reasonable means of escape. How short of a time constitutes a false imprisonment?

Back 21

However short a period of time.

Front 22

Confinement means no reasonable means of escape possible. Does the plaintiff have to seek out a means of escape?

Back 22

The plaintiff is under no duty to search for a means of escape or to run any risk of harm to her person or property.

Front 23

Parvi v. City of Kingston

Back 23

The kid was drunk and the police moved him to an abandoned golf course. The rule that came out of it was that you only have to remember confinement at the time, you do not have to remember it afterwards.

Front 24

What are the four ways confinement can be caused?

Back 24

1. Physical force
2. Threats or duress
3. Actual or apparent physical barriers to escape
4. Arrest

Front 25

What type of behavior constitutes emotional distress?

Back 25

"Extreme" and "outrageous" conduct that exceeds all bounds of decent behavior

Front 26

While the defendant's conduct may have been aimed solely at the plaintiff, can the defendant also be liable for infliction of emotional distress to member's of the persons family present at the time of the conduct?

Back 26

The defendant must have known that his conduct towards the first person was substantially certain to hurt the plaintiff (family member), or the conduct was at least reckless toward the plaintiff.

Front 27

What type of intent is neccessary for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

Back 27

The defendant must have intentionally caused SEVERE emotional distress or mental anguish.

Front 28

Is recovery allowed in intentional infliction of emotional distress when no injuries are caused?

Back 28

Recovery is allowed, the outrageous nature of the defendant's conduct may be a more reliable indication of damage to the plaintiff than actual physical injury.

Front 29

What is severe emotional distress and how is it determined?

Back 29

Severe emotional distress is more than a reasonable person could be expected to endure and it is a fact question in each case.

Front 30

Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida

Back 30

An employee told a customer she stunk when she asked the price of something. This was determined to be an annoyance and not severe emotional distress.

Front 31

What are the four elements as outlined in Harris v. Jones that are necessary for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

Back 31

1. The conduct must be intentional or reckless.
2. The conduct must be extreme and outrageous
3. There must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress.
4. The emotional distress must be severe.

Front 32

Taylor v. Vallelunga

Back 32

The defendant beat the plaintiff's father while she was in the other room but he didn't know. The rule is that the defendant must have anticipated that mental stress would have been inflicted on the plaintiff.

Front 33

Is a defendant liable for trespass to land if he acts in good faith, believing himself to be the owner?

Back 33

Yes, and damages need not be caused in order to be liable. A mere single blade of grass being trampled is enough for liability.

Front 34

Dougherty v. Stepp

Back 34

Every unprivileged entry onto the land of another is trespass regardless of the amount of damages. The defendant went on plaintiffs land to survey the property and did not make any markings or other disturbances.

Front 35

What are ways that someone could trespass without simply walking onto your property?

Back 35

Failure to leave the land (overstaying your welcome, failure to remove property after permission has expired

Front 36

What must a plaintiff show to prove trespass of chattel?

Back 36

Must show a volitional movement by the defendant that disposses of or damages the chattel

Front 37

What type of intent is necessary in dealing with trespass on chattel?

Back 37

It is only necessary that the defendant intended to deal with the chattel in the way he did

Front 38

In order for a plaintiff to recover for trespass on chattel what type of possession is necessary?

Back 38

The plaintiff must be either in actual possession or must have the right to immediate possession.

Front 39

Glidden v. Szybiak

Back 39

The chattel owner must prove more than nominal damages. (Dog was not disturbed by young girl playing with it)

Front 40

What are the implicaitons in conversion of you only had to have intended to act with the property in the way that you did?

Back 40

It means that being a concious wrongdoes is not a defense

Front 41

The invasion required for a conversion claim is higher than that for a trespass to chattels claim. What is the difference?

Back 41

In conversion there must be a substantial dispossession.
In trespass to chattel in does not threaten the owner's rightful interest, just interferes, i.e throwing a stone at someones car.

Front 42

What is a substantial dispossession (conversion)?

Back 42

If the defendant takes the chattel from another with their consent, bars the rightful owner's access to it, or obtains possession of chattel by fraud, there is a conversion

Front 43

What are the six factors in determining the seriousness of interference?

Back 43

1. The extent and duration of the actor's exercise of dominion or control;
2. The actor's intent to assert a right in fact inconsistent with the other's right of control.
3. the actor's good faith
4. the extent and duration of the resulting interference with the other's right to control
5. The harm done to the chattel
6. The inconvience and expense caused to the other

Front 44

What are the six ways a person can convert a chattel?

Back 44

1. Acquiring possession of it (stealing)
2. Damaging it or altering it
3. Using it
4. Receiving it (obtaining purchase after thief)
5. Disposing of it (wrongfully selling chattel)
6. Refusing to surrender it

Front 45

If there is an intentional conversion there could also be intentional __________

Back 45

emotional distress