Intentional Torts

Front 1

Intent

Back 1

Intent may either:

(1) Specific; or

(2) General

Front 2

Battery

Back 2

Elements:

(i) Harmful or offensive contact;

(ii) To plaintiff's person;

(iii) Intent; and

(iv) Causation.

Front 3

Assault

Back 3

Elements:

(1) An act by DF creating a reasonable apprehension in PL'

(ii) of immediate harmful or offensive contact to PL's person

(iii) Intent; and

(iv( Causation

Front 4

False Imprisonment

Back 4

Elements:

Intent to confine

Acts of confinement

o Physical

o Threat

o Force

o Duress

Consciousness or harm to PL due to confinement

Front 5

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Back 5

Elements:

1. Intentional or reckless conduct

2. Act extreme or outrageous

3. Causal connection b/w wrongful conduct and theemotional distress; and

4. Serve emotional distress

Front 6

Extreme Outrageous

Back 6

o So outrageous incharacter and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds ofdecency

o Regarded asatrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community

o Leads areasonable person to exclaim, “outrageous!”

Front 7

Trespass to Land

Back 7

Elements:

(i) Physical invasion of PL's real property;

(ii) Intent; and

(iii) Causation

Front 8

Trespass to Chattels

Back 8

Elements:

(i) an act by DF that interfere with PL's right of possession in a chattel;

(ii) Intent;

(iii) Causation; and

(iv) damages

Two types of interference:

(1) intermeddling; or

(2) dispossession

Front 9

Conversion

Back 9

Damages in conversion are like there was a force sale.You get the for sale value. Dominion or control over another person’s property

Front 10

Defense: Consent

Back 10

(1) Express (Actual) Consent

(2) Implied Consent

(3) Capacity Required

(4) Exceeding Consent given

Front 11

Express Consent

Back 11

P has expressly shown a willingness to submit to DF’sconduct

Front 12

Implied Consent

Back 12

Apparent consent which a reasonable person would inferfrom PL’s conduct

1. Implied by amatter of fact (we will imply consent from your action)

2. ConsentImplied as a matter of law (i.e. emergency=life threatening)

3. SubstituteConsent (Power of attorney)

Front 13

Self-Defense and Defense of other

Back 13

Restatement 63:Elements §

(1) Reasonable belief that there is a threat bodilyharm

(2) Reasonable action or proportionality

Was it a proportional response given the danger?

Front 14

Privilege

Back 14

§ Restatement76: The actor is privileged to defenda third person from harmful or offensive contact or other invasion of hisinterests of personality under the same conditions and by the same means asthose under and by which he is privileged to defend himself if the actorcorrectly or reasonably believes that:

(a) the circumstances are such as to give the third person a privilege or self-defense, and (b) his intervention is necessary for protection of thethird person

Front 15

Self-Defense

Back 15

When a person reasonably believes that she is being or is about to be attacked, she may use such force as is reasonable necessary to protect against injury.

Front 16

Defense of Real Property

Back 16

Limited to “reasonable force’, not intended or likelyto cause death or serious injury; Default defense rule is that a trespassermust first be warned/asked to leave, that does NOT apply to violent trespassers

Front 17

Defense of Personal Property

Back 17

The majority rule is that one can only use whatreasonable force may be necessary to effectively prevent the unlawful taking ordetention or property; once something goes from intermeddling to dispossession,recapture rights are gone

Front 18

Necessity: Public

Back 18

o Where the act isfor the public good, the defense is absolute

o Public necessityallows for a defense to both real and personal property trespasses; there isNEVER a defense that justifies sacrificing a person

Front 19

Necessity: Private

Back 19

Where the act benefits a limited number of people. Thedefense is qualified (actor must pay for any injury he causes)

Front 20

Justitification

Back 20

(a) Even if the defendant’s conduct does not fit withinone of the conventional defenses discussed above, he may be entitled to thegeneral defense of justification; a “catch-all” used where there are goodreasons for exculpating the defendant for what would otherwise be an intention

(b) Non-nominate affirmative defense applicable tointentional torts. Not well established

Front 21

Act by DF

Back 21

Volitional movement by DF

Front 22

Transferred Intent

Back 22

Applies when the DF intends to commit a tort against one person but instead:

(i) commits a different tort against that person;

(ii)commits the same tort as intended but against a different person;

(iii)commits a different tort against a different person

Front 23

Limitations on Use of Transferred Intent

Back 23

Transfered intent may be invoked only if both the tort intended and the tort that results are one of the following:

(a) Assault

(b) Battery

(c) False Imprisonment

(d) Trespass to Land;

(e) Trespass to chattle

Front 24

Direct or indirect contact

Back 24

Contact can be direct or indirect