Torts 2

Front 1

Paul v Holbrook

Back 1

P alleges D harassed while working. Massage shoulders 2 occasions. P reported. A, B, IIED. OC

Hint 1

OB case

Front 2

Bullying @ School

Back 2

Whether it was offensive in regards to community standards @ particular time. Prob whether 8 yr old was intending to cause OC

Front 3

D response to OB

Back 3

Casual touching, failed to produce evidence of intent, prior conversations, just kidding, friendly contact

Front 4

P arguments OB

Back 4

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

Front 5

Johnson v Pankratz AZ 2000

Back 5

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

Front 6

Fisher v Carrousel Motor Hotel TX 1967

Back 6

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

Front 7

Assault

Back 7

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

Front 8

McCraney v Flanigan NC 80

Back 8

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,

Hint 8

Assault

Front 9

Piccard v Barry Pontiac-Buick

Back 9

A & B.

Front 10

Assault definition

Back 10

A is a physical act of a threatening nature/an offer of corporal injury which puts an individual in reasonable fear of imminent BH.

Front 11

What makes A compensable

Back 11

Apprehension of injury

Front 12

What damages for A?

Back 12

N, C, Punis, Damages for P's mental disturbanc inc fright, humiliation, physical injury reasonable person standard

Front 13

Is intent to injure necessary for Battery?

Back 13

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.

Front 14

Does B req proof of contact

Back 14

Yes

Front 15

Damages for sexual A & B

Back 15

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

Front 16

Does a conditional threat suffice for an assault?

Back 16

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

Front 17

Cullison v Medley IN 1991

Back 17

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.

Front 18

Conditional Threat that = A

Back 18

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

Front 19

Castiglione v Galpin

Back 19

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

Front 20

Factors taken into acct when determining if there has been an assault

Back 20

Body la, placement & movement, gender/body size. ? whether a reasonable person WH felt imminent apprehension.

Front 21

Picard v Barry RI 1995

Back 21

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.

Front 22

Can you recover damages for mental truama & distress from A

Back 22

Yes, Cullison v Medley A is r to be free from B purely psychological harm. May also recover for physical manifestations of ED

Front 23

FI

Back 23

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)

Front 24

Lmtd v Wilson-Robinson Ar 1994

Back 24

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

Front 25

Hurst v Wunnenberg WI 1978

Back 25

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

Front 26

RS FI

Back 26

1. act
2. intent to confine wi/boudnaries fixed by actor
3. CF
4. confinement/harm

Front 27

5 ways to bring @ confinement for FI

Back 27

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

Front 28

Soares v Ann Hpe

Back 28

If P says FI by police than 2 poss suits FI & MP where threat unsuccessful. Crim trial wanted proof of shoplifting find price.

Front 29

Elements of MP

Back 29

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

Front 30

T to Land

Back 30

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

Front 31

Damages for trespass to land

Back 31

nom, comp, punis can be allowed wo/comp Jacques v Steenberg

Front 32

Jacques v Steenberg WI 97

Back 32

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

Front 33

Restatement damages

Back 33

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

Front 34

Doucherty v Stepp NC 1835

Back 34

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

Front 35

Baker v Shymkiv Ohio 83

Back 35

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

Front 36

Cullision v Medley 2 IN 91

Back 36

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

Front 37

Conversion

Back 37

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

Front 38

Trespass to Chattels

Back 38

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

Front 39

Defenses to Intentional Torts

Back 39

1. Consent
2. Self Defense
3. Defense of Others
4. Defense of Property

Front 40

Defense of Property

Back 40

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

Front 41

Hannabalson v Session IA 1902

Back 41

P reached over fence & shook D's ladder D struck arm lightly & tolder her to stay on own side held for D

Hint 41

Defense of Prop

Front 42

Newcom v Russel KY 1909

Back 42

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

Hint 42

Defense of Prop

Front 43

Vancherie v Siperly MD 1966

Back 43

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

Hint 43

Defense of Prop

Front 44

Is there a retreat clause in IA?

Back 44

No duty to retreat W of Miss R.

Hint 44

Duty to retreat

Front 45

Self Defense

Back 45

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

Hint 45

Elements of Self Defense

Front 46

Silas v Bowen SC 1967

Back 46

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

Hint 46

Use of SBH in Defense of Property

Front 47

Do mere words justify the use of a deadly weapon in SD

Back 47

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

Front 48

Woodard v Turniseed

Back 48

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