-Tort-Battery-Assault-False-Imprisonment-Intentional-Infliction-Of-Emotional-Distress

Front 1

What are protecting in a battery case?

Back 1

Personal dignity of the person, protecting the dignity of the plfs' body.

Front 2

What are the four requirements for battery?

Back 2

1. Contact w/plfs' body
2. Act on part of def'
3. Act has to be harmful (causes pain or is offensive)
4. Contact must be intentional

Front 3

Case Description:

Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel

Back 3

Waiter did not want to serve a black man, snatched plate from his hand and cursed him - plate was considered "apart" of man's body.

Front 4

What is a classic harmful contact?

Back 4

Spitting in face.

Front 5

Case Description:

Wallace v. Rosen

Back 5

There is a certain amount of touch to be expected in a crowded area - touch someone to get attention is not considered harmful or offensive.

Front 6

Is there negligence in battery?

Back 6

No.

Front 7

What is the definition of civil assault?

Back 7

The threat or use of force on another that cuases that person to have a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact coupled with apparent present ability to effectuate the attempt

Front 8

What are the 4 requirements of Assault?

Back 8

1. Some act on part of def'
2. Act coupled w/apparent present ability
3. Contact is one you are apprehensive of (you don't want)
4. Intent (in eyes of plf')

Front 9

Case Description:

Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill

Back 9

Plf' did not want the touch of the def' and was apprehensive of his touch after he made an offensive remark and extended his hand out to her.

Front 10

What is the difference between assault & battery?

Back 10

Battery requires the contact. Assault requires only the apprehension.

Front 11

What is the definition of false imprisonment?

Back 11

Def' intentionally, by acts or threats, causes plf' to be totally confined for an unreasonably amount of time w/in boundaries (physical or intangible) established by Def', w/no reasonable means of espace.

Front 12

What are the 4 requirements of false imprisonment?

Back 12

1. Act on part of def' that interferes w/plf's freedome of locomotion
2. Interference agst plf's will
3. Element of consciousness
4. Intent

Front 13

What is the majority rule for False Imprisonment requirement #1?

Back 13

Must be total physical interference (4 wall confinement)

Front 14

What is the minority rule and TEXAS rule for False Imprisonment requirement #1?

Back 14

Simply interfering w/the plfs' freedome to move about.

Front 15

Case Description:

Big Town Nursing Home v. Newman

Back 15

Def' held plf' against will for 51 days even thought it explicitly stated in admission contract that he was free to leave & he was not held on court order.

Front 16

Case Description:

Parvi v. City of Kingston

Back 16

Conscious of imprisonment is necessary - plf' coould not remember events, but evidence leads to believe that he was conscious during false imprisonment - FACT FOR JURY

Front 17

Case Description:

Harris v. LaBelles

Back 17

No imprisonment b/c plf' wanted to stay and clear things up (she had not stolen the watch) and she did not feel that she had to stay nor was she ever told she had to stay

Front 18

Case Description:

Enright v. Groves

Back 18

Ms. Enright's refusal to show driver's license was not unlawful and not an offense. Oficer was therefore not entitled to arrest her and her time spent in custody was affirmed as false imprisonment.

Front 19

Case Description:

Whittaker v. Sanford

Back 19

State required Majority for Requiremenet #1 - Appellate court created this by comparing boat to room and dingies as the key.

Front 20

What is the majority rule for False Imprisonment requirement #3?

Back 20

Plf' must be conscious.

Front 21

What is the minority rule for False Imprisonment requirement #3?

Back 21

Plf' doesn't have to remember later, just be conscious at time of event.

Front 22

What are the four requirements for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

Back 22

1. intent or reckless
2. extreme outrageous conduct
3. actions must be by def'
4. distress must be severe (by a reasonable person)

Front 23

Mental Anguish

Back 23

Personal injury confined to the mind of the plf'

Front 24

What is a 20th Century Tort?

Back 24

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Front 25

What is the 1 of 4 advancements of intentional infliction of emotional distress theory?

Back 25

We knew such emotions existed (grief, embarrassment, humilation), but that is why court had punitive damages. The courts were afraid to recognize mental anguish b/c the possibility of the increase of claims.

Front 26

What is the 2 of 4 advancements of intentional infliction of emotional distress theory?

Back 26

As medical profession advanced, the said mental anguish is real. Legal professional embraced by required some form of physical damage. If there was some form of impact to the body, the court could accept that this injury accompanied the emotional injury.

Front 27

What is the 3 of 4 advancements of intentional infliction of emotional distress theory?

Back 27

Medical profession advanced again and said that mental anguish can occur w/out physical impact. Legal profession advanced and said the body has to manifest emotional diures (aka – physical manifestation of emotional diuress).

Front 28

What is the 4 of 4 advancements of intentional infliction of emotional distress theory?

Back 28

Medical profession advanced once again and said that there doesn’t have to be a manifestation, but there is mental injury no less. Legal profession left this as a fact for the jury to establish whether mental injury has occurred.

Front 29

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress MAJOR POINT?

Back 29

there is no injury - there is a physical manifestation or physical impairment

Front 30

Case Description:

Taylor v. Vallelunga

Back 30

classic case where the plf’ failed to plead cause of action – you would have to allege that “by beating her father they intended to inflict emotional distress” – instead, she plead nothing and defs’ were able to dismiss their case b/c they said there was no intent

Front 31

Case Description:

Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida

Back 31

Plf’ argued that the statement made by employee caused her to aggravate a heart condition and lead to heart attack. Court found that the statement could not be deemed “severe” by a reasonable person. GROW THICK SKIN.

Front 32

Case Description:

State Rubbish Collectors v. Siliznoff

Back 32

The threats of violence impaired def’ (plf’ in counterclaim) that he could not return to work and was vomiting for days

Front 33

Case Description:

Harris v. Jones

Back 33

while actions were mean, the distress could not established to be legally sufficient. Injury not severe enough. While the conduct made him nervous, it is hard to connect to extreme emotional distress and an aggravation of a pre existing condition

Front 34

When filing a lawsuit, how do you know if you want to file for assault or for intentional infliction of emotional distress (how do you differentiate)?

Back 34

Ask yourself: what interest are we attempting to protect?

Assault – attempting to protect an individual from a touch they don’t want

Emotional Distress/ Mental Anguish – Attempting to protect an individual from a life altering even that prevents you from accomplishing life’s tasks