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
Reading...
Front

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

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/48

Click to flip

48 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
  • 3rd side (hint)
Paul v Holbrook
P alleges D harassed while working. Massage shoulders 2 occasions. P reported. A, B, IIED. OC
OB case
Bullying @ School
Whether it was offensive in regards to community standards @ particular time. Prob whether 8 yr old was intending to cause OC
D response to OB
Casual touching, failed to produce evidence of intent, prior conversations, just kidding, friendly contact
P arguments OB
D must have K (Title 7), custom, if CN prove P test fall back on K test. Reasonable person must have known that OC was substantially likely to result
Johnson v Pankratz AZ 2000
P alleges sexual abuse by fr. Subst amt of abuse & threats = nightmares & UTIs B req punis. B DN req P to prove damages & difficulty to quanity not justificaction for refusing
Fisher v Carrousel Motor Hotel TX 1967
Employee snatched D's plate away. Embarasshed = Offensive Battery. B inc clothing objects closely identified w/body. Actual physical contact is not req. Mental distress is recoverable
Assault
1. Act by D (volitional)
2. Intent p/k, TI, Minors/Insane liable
3. CF of apprehension
4. Imminent Apprehension of Harmful/Offensive Contact--P MB aware @ time, A can be mistaken if obj reasonable

McCraney v Flanigan NC 80
Date rape happened when P passed out no A b/c P was unaware & DN have apprehension @ time. A & B are diff actions can have B wo/A & A wo/B. Apprehension based on obj test,
Assault
Piccard v Barry Pontiac-Buick
A & B.
Assault definition
A is a physical act of a threatening nature/an offer of corporal injury which puts an individual in reasonable fear of imminent BH.
What makes A compensable
Apprehension of injury
What damages for A?
N, C, Punis, Damages for P's mental disturbanc inc fright, humiliation, physical injury reasonable person standard
Is intent to injure necessary for Battery?
No. B act that was intended to cause & in fact did cause an offensive contact w/or unconsented touching of or trauma upon the body of another t/b resulting in the consummation of A. Intent to injure unec where D willfully sets in motion a force that causes injury.
Does B req proof of contact
Yes

Damages for sexual A & B
Dignitory torts A, FI, IIED Recovery not lmtd to nom, E/i IIED not proved AZ allows damages for mental distress form a physical invasion of a person's security. Trad B gen damages can be recovered e/t no physical injury
Does a conditional threat suffice for an assault?
Usually not. If P can avoid harm. HW MB an A if D has no legal privilege to impose the condition, weapon b/c reasonable to fear harm by mere presence of a weapon
Cullison v Medley IN 1991
P appraoched D's minor daughter D & fam threatened P shaking gun in holster. P claims A & ED. Damages for ED allowed. A - touching of the mind if not the body. A MB est based upon the utterance of a conditional threat when the D has no legal privlige to impose condition.
Conditional Threat that = A
Words + threatening imminent conduct. I want you to leave trailer in 1 min if u DN I'll shoot - unprivileged threat actionable e/t it is form of a conditional threat/excessive force
Castiglione v Galpin
P went to D to inform him water WB turned off for nonpmt D got a gun. Where a D wields a gun in a threatening manner an A may occur. Totality of the circumstances. Words alone MN be suff to constitute an A h/w if have present ability to carry out then threats may suffice for A
Factors taken into acct when determining if there has been an assault
Body la, placement & movement, gender/body size. ? whether a reasonable person WH felt imminent apprehension.
Picard v Barry RI 1995
Female P sued for A & B when M D of bigger size approached & grabbed for camera. No CF of physical injury to P & t/f no malice.
Can you recover damages for mental truama & distress from A
Yes, Cullison v Medley A is r to be free from B purely psychological harm. May also recover for physical manifestations of ED
FI
1. Act by D
2. Intent, p/k/ti/insane/children
3. CF
4. Detention/Confinement by
physical force, boundaries, expressed/implied imminent threat of force MB words alone,
5. CF (Comp Damages)
6. Harm (No harm req for nom/punis)
Lmtd v Wilson-Robinson Ar 1994
Shopkeeper's privilege P returned to the store when ased by D's employee after alarm went off. No FI b/c no force/threat of force used by D. Future threat of harm DN = FI, implied threat of arrest DN = confinement. Submission MB responsive to a threat to apply physical force to the other's person immediately
Hurst v Wunnenberg WI 1978
Voter's reg. No confinement where a D is merely standing in the doorway. R. P WH inquired @ ability to leave wo/merely assuming inability to leave. FI intentional, unlawful & unconsented restraint by 1 person of the phsycial liberty of antoehr
RS FI
1. act
2. intent to confine wi/boudnaries fixed by actor
3. CF
4. confinement/harm
5 ways to bring @ confinement for FI
1. overpowering physical force
2. submission to threat to apply physical force immediately upon the other's going beyond fixed boundaries
3. duress/threats of physical force
4. D must have ability to carry out threat
5. Not req to incur risk of personal violence by resisting until acutlally used
Soares v Ann Hpe
If P says FI by police than 2 poss suits FI & MP where threat unsuccessful. Crim trial wanted proof of shoplifting find price.
Elements of MP
1. act getting P prosecuted
2. intent to initiate case wo/Probable cause
3. CF
4. unsuccessful crim/civil pros
5. nom, comp, punis,
6. clear proof required in MP malice = primary motive of ill/will hostility
T to Land
1. Act by D
2. Intent P/K DN need to K whose land
3. CF
4. interference w/P's poss r in real estate enters land, remains on land, DN remove something have duty to remove
5. CF of comp damages phsyical harm to prop/harm to owners
6. Damages
Damages for trespass to land
nom, comp, punis can be allowed wo/comp Jacques v Steenberg
Jacques v Steenberg WI 97
D moved mobile home over P's land after permission to do so was repeatedly denied. Nom & punis but no comp b/c no actual damages. Actual harm occurs in every T b/c disrespect for law
Restatement damages
allows nominal & punitive in trespass to land where actor K wo/consent punis if complete disregard for possessor's r, not recoverable in mistaken trespass to L b/c negates malice
Doucherty v Stepp NC 1835
CL intent element satisfied by entry upon the land of antoehr. T = legal means to est lawful possession/maintain boundaries t/f SL for T to L
Baker v Shymkiv Ohio 83
Trench neighbors came over LO had heart attack. T responsible for WD b/c liable for all results of IT. DN req forseeable to get $ when trespassing
Cullision v Medley 2 IN 91
Impact rule overruled. When 1 intentionally invades the premises of another in such a way as to provoke a reasonably forseeable emotional disturbance/trauma of the rightful occupier of the premises the occupier may in addition to recovering $ for damages to realty recover $ for emotional injury
Conversion
CF of appropriation of poss rights in personal prop.
1) D converted P's prop for own use
2) no damage to the prp req for $
3) measure of $ - forced sale FMV of goods @ time of appropriation
Trespass to Chattels
CF of interference of poss rights in personal property
1. D falls short of complete deprivation of P's poss rights
2. Must show actual damage to the prop to obtain judgment
3. Measure of damages = actual diminution of prop's value
Defenses to Intentional Torts
1. Consent
2. Self Defense
3. Defense of Others
4. Defense of Property
Defense of Property
1. Actual trespass by P.
2. Demand by D for P to leave land not req when P enters land w/force usually no time to make the request demand
3. P refuses to leave
4. Reasonable force but not death/sbh
Hannabalson v Session IA 1902
P reached over fence & shook D's ladder D struck arm lightly & tolder her to stay on own side held for D
Defense of Prop
Newcom v Russel KY 1909
P shot D in leg ot make D stop tearing down fence to allow cattle to cross over P's land Held for P never OK to use deadly weapon to remove T from land esp on outer boundaries
Defense of Prop
Vancherie v Siperly MD 1966
Sailor in restaurant Diff b/w ages, phsyical ability Jury should take provocative acts & words of P into acct for mitigation of punis in defense of prop switch to SD if possessible when SBH/D
Defense of Prop
Is there a retreat clause in IA?
No duty to retreat W of Miss R.
Duty to retreat
Self Defense
1. Actual/Apparent necessity of D's act
a. actual P is the aggerssor (P committed 1st tort) OR
b. Apparent: D reasonably believfed P was @ to commit HB
c. Silas v Bowen
2. Reasonable Force--may inc Death/SBH
a. comparable to P's action.
b. If reasonable p WH believed SBH the use of a deadly weapon CB justified
c. D must desist when danager abated
Elements of Self Defense
Silas v Bowen SC 1967
D shot P in ft after P grabbed D by shoulder D claimed fear SBH b/c P was much larger than D. Held for D. Prop owner's reasonable belief that he/fam were in danger of BI belief must be R. mere words Acted in reasonable apprehension of SBH & to repel what he reasonably feared would be a serious/dangerous assault by a person of overpowering size
Use of SBH in Defense of Property
Do mere words justify the use of a deadly weapon in SD
No words must be accompanied by a threat of violence, rare, age, size, strength can play a role. Words + conduct of putting hand on gun in pocket Silas
Woodard v Turniseed
P minor A & B committed w/a broom against D dairy farmer. D hit P ex w/broom after P DN leave prop b/c P DN have a ride. Prop O can use force reasonably perceived as nec to remove BN deadly/sbh where not comparable