Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

22 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
3-Part Answer for an Intentional Tort Essay
1. P must make out prima facie case for that specific tort
2. D must make out affirmative defenses.
3. Address the issue of vicarious liability (general considerations)
The preliminary issues in regards to Intentional Torts
1. Deals with P(s) as average reasonable persons.
2. Everybody is liable for intentional torts (including children-Garrett v. Dailey), capacity, etc.
3. Transferred Intent Doctrine- operate in two ways:
a. Intent can be transferred from person to person
B. Intent can be transferred from tort to tort- must fall within th eold trespass list of five torts: B, A, FI, TL, TC
Explain P's prima facie case for BATTERY
1. an intentional inlfiction of a harmful or offensive contact- unpermitted contact
2. with plaintiff's person- more than just touching the body of the plaintiff, touching anything connected with plaintiff's person (direct or indirect contact).
Indirect Contact case- Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel
Explain P's prima facie case for ASSAULT
1. intentional act to commit a reasonable apprehension of an
2. immediate battery
Test of apprehension:
a. it must be a reasonable apprehension
b. Don not confuse apprehension with fear or intimidation
c. apparent ability is all that is necessary
Test for Immediacy:
a. Words alone are not enough
b. Words coupled with conduct
c. Words can undo conduct and any reasonable apprehension
Explain P's prima facie case for FALSE IMPRISONMENT
1. an intentional sufficient act of restraint
2. in a bounded area
Explain Sufficient Act of Restraint-common sense fact analysis
a. Threats are enough. You don't need the actual application of force.
b. An "act" of rstraint can consist of an inaction. In order for this to happen, you have to find such that the D has an obligation to act. (Whittaker v. Sandford)
c. P must know of the confinement at the time
Explain Bounded Area:
a. An area is not bounded if there is a reasonable means of escape (key word- reasonable) (Not a rat-infested sewer escape route)
b. The P must know about the reasonable means of escape.
Explain P's prima facie case of an Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)
1. the intentional or reckless infliction of outrageous conduct of severe emotional or mental distress
2. causing damages
Explanation of outrageous conduct
a. It must be very extreme in nature
b. Conduct is continuous
Damages- must show substantial emotional distress
Explain P's prima facie case of Trespass to Land
1. the intentional act of physical invasion
2. to P's land
Explain physical invasion:
a. Does not require that D actually go onto P's land
b. some physical object does have to go onto P's land
Explanation of P's Land-
a. includes more than the surface of the property. It includes the space going up and down from the surface
Explain P's prima facie case of Trespass to Chattel
the intentional interference with P's use or possession of a "chattel"
(examples include: unauthorized borrowing, such as taking another's car out for joyride)
*some damage*
Explain P's prima facie case of Conversion
Conversion occurs with D substantially interferes with P's possession or ownership that it is fair to require D to pay the property's full value
*Lots of damage or destruction*
Defenses to Intentional Torts
1. Consent
2. Self-Defense
3. Defense of Others
4. Defense of Property
5. Necessity
Rule of Intent
1. Substantial Certainty or Knowledge
2. Motive or Purpose
1. P must have capacity
2. Must determine if there was consent
a. express consent - words were used
b. implied consent
i. apparent implied consent
a. custom & usage
b. P's conduct
3. Determine if D has exceeded the boundaries of the consent given.
Defense Privileges: Self-Defense, Defense of Others, Defense of Property
1. Timing Requirement- must be satisfied; tort against which you are defending is now occurring or just about to occur
2. Defense Test- must be satisfied; all you need is a reasonable belief that a tort is being committed
a. General Rule: There is no duty to retreat before using self-defense
b. Exception: (strong modern trend)- Before you use serious force, you should retreat if you can do so safely and are not in your own home.
3. You cannot exceed the boundaries- You cannot use too much force (Katko v. Briney- used rigged shotgun in abandoned house to keep intruders away, not a good defense to property; excessive use of force)
a. Proper Force Rules
i. For self-defense and defense of others you can use reasonable force which includes deadly force if what appears to be a deadly attack
ii. For defense of property, you can use reasonable force, but never force that would cause serious bodily injury. (Try verbal demand first).
1. Can only be used where tort is a property tort
2. determine if it is public necessity case or private necessity case
a. Public Necessity- For the benefit of many and is an unlimited privilege (Surocco v. Geary- public official status not necessary to make decision to destroy property to save other property.)
b. Private Necessity- For the benefit of a limited number of people. The D will be liable for any damages caused. (Vincent v. Lake Erie- defense of necessity to save life (tied boat to dock during storm)but must pay damages to dockowner for the dock
Cases Involving Battery
Garrett v. Dailey- inferred intent; substantial certainty contact would occur (5-year-old pulled lawn chair away from old lady when she was about to sit down, fell and broke her hip)
Vosberg v. Putney- 11-year-old kicked boy under table (intended act is unlawful, the intention to commit must necessarily be unlawful)
Mohr v. Williams- Doctor operated on different ear than intended to and did not get consent from P
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Home- D grabbed P's plate from him during lunch (racial); indirect contact example
Cases Involving False Imprisonment
Whittaker v. Sandford- involves cult leader who would not provide woman with boat in order to reach her destination as promised by him
Cases involving IIED
Harris v. Jones- P,employee had speech impediment and was harrassed continuously by D, known sensitivity (was prescribed nerve pills) (Not IIED- because it was not intentional or reckless conduct, extreme and outrageous, ct said)
Cases Involving Trespass to Land
Borland v. Sanders Lead Co.- Physical lead particulates in air polluting P's farm
Dougherty v. Stepp- D went onto P's land and surveyed it (every unauthorized entry onto someone else's land is trespass)
Definition of Nuisance
an intentional act which substantially and unreasonably interferes P's enjoyment of real Property (Tighty-Whitey Case- D wears only underwear to retrieve his newspaper in the morning)
Policy Objectives in Intentional Torts
1. Judicial Administration- to restrict the flood of litigation
Fundamental Purpose of Tort Law
1. Compensate truly injured parties
2. Prevent self-help
Cases involving Trespass to Chattels
Huffman & Wright Logging Co. v. Wade- Tree activist group tied themselves to P's equipment causing them not to be able to work