Intentional Torts And Privileges

Front 1

Define Intent

Back 1

The purpose design or desire to cause... or having substantial knowledge that doing something will result in a particular outcome.

Front 2

Intent v. Good Faith

Back 2

One's good faith in committing an act is irrelevant to meeting the basic elements of an intentional tort.

Front 3

When are the mentally ill and children capable of forming intent?

Back 3

In general, children and the mentally disabled can be held liable if the plaintiff can establish the requisite intent.

In general, one's mental illness is not relevant to his or her liability.

Front 4

Does one's mistakes negate their intent?

Back 4

No, one's good faith or lack of malice in performing an act does not negate the intent to do so.

Front 5

Define Battery

Back 5

A person is liable for battery if he intentionally causes a harmful or offensive contact of another or something so closely associated with another's body to be considered part of it.

Front 6

What are the elements of Battery?

Back 6

Intent

Harmful or Offensive Contact

Of another or something so closely associated with another's body.

Front 7

Define Battery > Harmful Contact

Back 7

Harmful contact:

Any physical impairment of the condition of another's body, or physical pain or illness, whether done directly or indirectly

Front 8

Define Battery > Offensive Contact

Back 8

Offensive contact:

An act is offensive if it goes beyond a reasonable person's sense of personal dignity.

Front 9

Things to consider when determining whether an act is offensive (assault, battery).

Back 9

Any history of relationship between the parties.

Whether the person was known to be super-sensitive.

Front 10

Re: Battery

Provide an example of when a person need not be present to commit a battery.

Back 10

Setting a wire out for a person, knowing that she will trip over it later.

Spiking someone's drink.

Front 11

Re: Battery - Provide examples of things that would be so closely associated with a person's body to be considered part of it.

Back 11

A cane, a plate they are holding. Their hat or jacket.

Front 12

Define Assault

Back 12

A person is liable for assault if they intentionally cause a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact on the part of another.

Front 13

What are the elements of assault.

Back 13

Intent

Reasonable Apprehension

Imminent harmful or offensive contact.

Front 14

Define Assault > imminent harmful or offensive contact

Back 14

Imminent does not mean immediate. Simply that one is close enough to striking distance that she can reach the other almost at once, or that she can make a weapon discharge in a very short period of time.

Front 15

Define Assault > reasonable apprehension

Back 15

A person must cause the victim to expect that he is about to be touched unless stopped by the plaintiff's actions or by a third party or circumstance.

Front 16

Discuss Assault > Threats

Back 16

Mere words don't constitute assault unless paired together with other acts or circumstances to put the other in reasonable apprehension of harmful or offensive contact.

A person must have an apparent ability to carry out the threat in the very short term.

Future oriented threats generally don't count since a person could change their intent before doing the act.

Front 17

Define False Imprisonment

Back 17

A person is liable for false imprisonment if D intented through acts or threats to confine P against P's will and within boundaries established by D, this act directly or indirectly resulted in such confinement, and P was conscious of the confinement or was harmed by it.

Front 18

What are the elements of False Imprisonment?

Back 18

Intent

By Acts or Threats

Causation

Confinement

Within set boundaries

P is aware of confinement or harmed by it.

Against P's will or without legal justification.

Front 19

Define False Imprisonment > Threats or Acts

Back 19

Like assault, one must have an apparent ability to back up the threat and future threats are not sufficient.

Includes threats to others, threats to take or hold personal property, or a perceived assertion of legal authority.

Front 20

Discuss False Imprisonment > Confinement

Back 20

Confinement space must have definite phsycical boundaries - blocking a path is not enough.

The size of the confinement can be expansive.

Once cannot be confine from entering a location - e.g. kept out of a ballpark, or store.

Front 21

Discuss False Imprisonment > Knowledge of Confinement

Back 21

A person must be aware that they are being confined or be harmed by it.

A person who is confined and doesn't realize it until later does not have a claim unless she was harmed.

Children who are kidnapped, regardless of their knowledge, are said to be harmed because the parents are harmed.

Front 22

Define False Imprisonment > Reasonable Escape

Back 22

A means of escape is unreasonable if P does not know about it or if it involved exposure to P, material harm to the clothing, or danger of substantial harm to another.

If P chooses to use an unreasonable escape and gets injured, D is not liable for the damages that have occurred as a result of the escape.

Front 23

Define False Arrest:

Back 23

A police officer who unlawfully arrests someone may be held liable for false arrest if the person is ultimately found not guilty for the criminal charges involved.

Also, a private citizen can be held liable for a false arrest if she helps an officer in an unlawful arrest as long as the citizen is aware that the arrest is unlawful.

Front 24

Define Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Back 24

A person is liable for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress if he intentionally or recklessly acts in an extreme or outrageous manner in order to cause severe emotional distress to another.

Front 25

Elements of IIED.

Back 25

Intent or Reckless

Extreme or Outrageous Act

Causation

Severe Emotional Distress

Front 26

Define IIED > Reckless

Back 26

A person has acted reckless if she knows of the risk or knows of fact that would be obvious to a reasonable person in the actor's situation

And

she could have taken small measures to reduce or eliminate the risk but didn't.

Front 27

Define IIED > Extreme and Outrageous

Back 27

Conduct that is so outrageous in character and so extreme as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community

Does not include general vulgarities which amount to "mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities."

Front 28

Discuss how racial slurs could be considered "extreme and outrageous" behavior in a claim for IIED.

Back 28

Racial slurs, sexual comments, etc. are not enough to constitute outrageous behavior, unless they are considered with other conduct - continuous humiliation and embarrassment by reason of racial jokes, slurs, and comments made in the presence of coworkers and supervisors.

Front 29

Describe the "Commons Carriers and Inkeepers" duty with IIED.

Back 29

Common Carriers are held to a higher standard for Outrageous and Extreme behavior. Behavior that might fall below extreme in normal circumstances can be seen as extreme when done in a situation involving common carriers and inkeepers.

Front 30

What constitutes Severe Emotional Distress?

Back 30

Generally, a person must have a physical representation of their stress, and this representation must be reasonably severe. Simple crying, or the fact that a person is upset is not enough. Examples include combinations of missing days from work, depression, seeing a physician or psychologist, sleepless nights, vomiting, medications, etc.

Front 31

Define Trespass to Land

Back 31

A person is liable for trespass to land if he 1)intentionally enters the land in possession of another, or causes another person or object to do so 2) remains on land in possession of another, or 3) fails to remove an object from the possessors land which she is under a duty to remove.

Front 32

What are the elements to Trespass to Land

Back 32

Intent

To enter
OR Remain
OR leave an object

On land in possession of another.

Front 33

Define Trespass to Land > Land

Back 33

Land in possession of anothe ris considered infinite, expansive vertically, with limits on airspace to include that which is nearest to the ground.

Front 34

What special privileges exists for Trespass to Land?

Back 34

Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires public accommodation business who affect interstate commerce to serve customers without discrimination.

A private individual may control territory so large that it may be considered public for reasons of freedom of speech.

Front 35

What rule governs intangible substances with regards to Trespass to Land?

Back 35

Small particulates that flow onto and accumulate on land in possession of another can be trespass to land if some substantial damage to the land occurs as a result

Front 36

Define Trespass to Chattel

Back 36

A person is liable for trespass to chattel if she intentionally interferes with chattel in possession of another which results in 1)dispossession or deprivation of the use of the chattel 2) impairment of the condition, quality, or value of the chattel, or 3) harm to the person of the possessor of to persons or things which the possessor has a legally protected interest in.

Front 37

What are the elements of Trespass to Chattel?

Back 37

Intent
Interference
With Chattel in Possession of Another
Which results in: lack of use, lack of quality, or harm

Front 38

Define Conversion.

Back 38

A person is liable for conversion if he intentionally exercises control or dominion over a chattel in possession of another which so seriously interferes with another's right to control the property that it is fair to require him/her to pay the other the full value of the property.

Front 39

What are the elements to Conversion

Back 39

Intent

Exercise Control or Dominion

Another's Chattel

Seriously Interfere with Another's right to control the property

Fair that they should be required to replace it

Front 40

Discuss ways a person could exercise dominion or control over another's property (re: conversion).

Back 40

Acquiring Possession (stealing, buying from a thief)

Damaging or Altering

Removing

Withholding Possession

Using It

Front 41

What factors affect the degree of interference with one's ownership or possession?

Back 41

Extent and duration of actor's exercise in dominion or control

Actor's intent to assert a right inconsistent with the other's right of control.

Actor's good faith

Extend of resulting interference

Harm done to the chattel

Inconveniences and expense causes to the possessor

Front 42

What general rule governs consent?

Back 42

A person is privileged to act where another has consented to the conduct. Consent may be expressed or implied.

Front 43

How does the court measure implied consent?

Back 43

By using facts to determine what objective manifestations exist which would lead a defendant to believe that she had implied consent.

Front 44

Describe Customary Consent.

Back 44

If it would be customary for a reasonable person in the plaintiff's shoes to consent to something, then this can be taken as implied consent.

Example: A privilege might exist to cross a person's land to get to a public fishing hole.

Front 45

What exceptions exist for granting consent when a person has a lack of capacity to consent (young child, intoxicated, unconscious, etc.)

Back 45

During medical emergencies if all the following are met: 1)patient is incapacitated 2) immediate action is needed to save the life of the person or to remove them from harm 3)patient would likely consent if given the opportunity 4)a reasonable person would consent

Consent by relative

Court Order - may give consent if acts would save a person's life.

Front 46

Define Scope of Consent

Back 46

A person who goes beyond the scope of consent given can be held liable for the tort committed.

Front 47

Discuss Professional Sports and Consent:

Back 47

One's participation in professional sports does not constitute implied consent for intentional attacks or injuries outside the rules of the game.

Front 48

Discuss consent provided because of a mistake in fact.

Back 48

A person's mistake in giving consent because he didn't realize an obvious aspect of the transaction does not make the consent ineffective.

Front 49

What exceptions exist for consent that was given based on a mistake of fact?

Back 49

Mistakes in consent that have been induced by fraud vitiate the consent. Fraud may include leaving out information or lying.

Front 50

What rule governs consent provided under duress?

Back 50

Consent under duress depends on the immediacy and seriousness of the duress. Threats for future acts likely will not vitiate consent.

Front 51

Define Self Defense

Back 51

The defendant is privileged to use reasonable force to defend himself if a reasonable person in the defendant's situation would have believed that the use of physical force was immediately necessary to protect himself from another's unlawful conduct.

Front 52

Does Self-Defense apply to Trespass to Chattel.

Back 52

No, Self-Defense only applies to threats of harmful or offenseive contact to a person (thus only including false imprisonment, assault, battery, and negligence).

Front 53

Must an actual danger exist for a person to use Self-Defense?

Back 53

No, a person must only have a reasonable beleif that the force is neccessary to protect herself against battery, even though there is in fact no necessity.

Thus, a reasonable mistake can be made on the part of the actor as long as it is reasonable that she use such force.

Front 54

Discuss provocation with regards to Self-Defense.

Back 54

Provocation by words is not enough to justify self-defense force. Words plus the threat of force may be enough however - as in elements of assault.

Front 55

Discuss one's duty to retreat prior to using Reasonable Force in Self-Defense.

Back 55

The restatement definition suggests that a person should retreat from force as much as possible prior to using reasonable force in defense. Most courts, however, suggest that a person may use any force short of causing serious injury to protect themselves from harm.

Front 56

Define Reasonable Force:

Back 56

The force used must be reasonably necessary for protection against a threatened battery. Differences in size, age, relative strength, etc. can be used as factors in considering reasonable force.

Front 57

Discuss one's liability if they injury a third person in self-defense of another.

Back 57

The privilege associated with injuring a person in self-defense carries over to a third party who is injured by mistake while in the act of self-defense

Front 58

Define Defense of Others

Back 58

A person is privileged to use reasonable force to defend another against unlawful conduct when that person would be privileged to defend himself in the same situation.

Front 59

Discuss one's liability when making a reasonable mistake in defending another.

Back 59

Majority View: A person "steps into the shoes" of the person he is aiding. Thus if he helps the aggressor, he is also liable.

Minority View: A person may use reasonable force to defend another even when he is mistaken in his belief that the intervention is necessary - Restatement View.

Front 60

Define Defense of Land

Back 60

A person is justified to use reasonable force against another when the use of the force is necessary to prevent trespass on the person's property.

Front 61

Define Recovery of Property

Back 61

one who is wrongfully dispossessed of a chattel by force or fraud has the privilege to repossess the chattel with reasonable force through fresh pursuit, if demand has been provided under the circumstances.

Front 62

Define Necessity:

Back 62

A person is privileged to harm the property interest of another where it is necessary to do so in order to prevent great harm to third persons or to the defendant himself.

Front 63

Define Authority of Law

Back 63

A defendant is privileged to engage in otherwise tortious conduct if the defendant is authorized by law to act as he does.

Front 64

Define Discipline

Back 64

A parent or one who is deemed to stand in place of a parent may use reasonable force and restraint upon persons in their control.

Front 65

Define Justification

Back 65

Restraint or detention, reasonable under the circumstances and in time and manner, imposed for the purpose of preventing another from inflicting personal injuries or interfering with or damaging real or personal property in one's lawful possession or custody is lawful

Front 66

Is a person privileged to eject persons who are authorized to be on their land?

Back 66

No, one does not have privilege to use force against those who are authorized to use the land (e.g. telephone company operators)

Front 67

What if any warning should be given before using one's privilege of Defense of Land

Back 67

When an invasion is peaceful, the use of any force is considered unreasonable UNLESS a request has been made to leave the land.

No request is necessary if it is obvious that the request would be useless or if doing so would be unsafe.

Front 68

Discuss using deadly force in protecting one's land.

Back 68

A person may use deadly force only when protecting personal safety or her family, and only then when necessary.

A person may be justified in using deadly force to prevent the commission of a violent crime.

Front 69

Discuss rigging mechanical devices to protect land.

Back 69

Mechanical devices may be used only if the possessor of the land would be privileged to use a similar degree of force if she were present and acting herself.

Front 70

What elements exists for a person's privilege to Recover Chattel

Back 70

Wrongfully Possessed

By Force or Fraud

With Reasonable Force

During Fresh Pursuit

when Demand has been given, if safe and reasonable to do so

Front 71

Define Recovery of Property > Fresh Pursuit

Back 71

Prompt discovery of the dispossession and prompt and persistent efforts to recover the chattel

Front 72

Is demand necessary before using force to recover a chattel?

Back 72

Yes, although it is not necessary if giving demand for the chattel would be obviously dangerous or useless.

Front 73

Describe the Shopkeeper's Privilege when recovering chattel.

Back 73

The shopkeepers privilege allows a shopkeeper to detain a person for a reasonable investigation if they reasonably believe the person has stolen property. Reasonable force may only be used when demand has been given. In addition, the privilege generally extends to the outside of the store as well.

Front 74

Describe Public Necessity

Back 74

A defendant is privileged to act under public necessity defense when the defendant engages in otherwise tortious acts to avoid imminent public disasters.

A person will not received compensation from the individual doing the trespass, but may receive compensation from the government.

Front 75

Describe Private Necessity

Back 75

A defendant is privileged to act under the private necessity when defendant engages in otherwise tortious acts to protect the defendant or the defendant's property from harm. Even though the defendant's conduct is privileged, the defendant must pay for the actual harm caused by his trespass.

Front 76

Is a person privileged to use reasonable force to eject someone from their land who is exercising their privilege of private necessity.

Back 76

No, a person is not privileged to use any force against someone who is exercising a private necessity privilege.

Since a person will be compensated for any actual damages while allowing a necessary trespass to occur, she may not use any force to defeat the exercise of the privilege, and would be liable for any damages caused by preventing the privilege to occur.

Front 77

Describe any limits for an individual exercising his privilege of Authority of Law while conducting an arrest with a valid warrant.

Back 77

A public officer is liable if she goes beyond the scope of the warrant, causing damage

The public officer is liable if he makes a mistake of fact while executing the warrant - arrests the wrong person.

Front 78

Describe the Authority of Law privilege for private citizens with regards to arrests made without a warrant.

Back 78

A private citizen can arrest without a warrant to prevent felonies or breaches of the peace that are being committed in front of them.

A private citizen must know for a fact that a felony has been committed and have reaonsable grounds for the person he thinks did it.

Neither the police nor private citizens have a privilege to arrest someone for misdemeanor crimes.

Any force used in any arrest must be reasonable.

Front 79

Describe the Authority of Law privilege for public officers with regards to arrests made without a warrant.

Back 79

Both public officers and private citizens may arrest for felonies and breaches of the peace that are committed in their presence.

A public officer may arrest for reasonable evidence of a felony being committed and a person he knows for a fact has committed the crime.

Neither a public officer nor a private citizen can arrest a person for misdemeanor crimes.

No unreasonable force may be used while executing an arrest.

Front 80

What factors should be considered when deciding if a parent has a privilege to discipline their child?

Back 80

Age, sex, and condition of the child.

Nature of the offense and apparent motive.

Influence of the child's conduct on other children.

Whether force or confinement is reasonably necessary and appropriate to compel obedience.

Whether the force used is disproportionate to the offense, unnecessarily degrading, or likely to cause serious or permanent harm.