Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
75 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Intentional Tort Liability
Prima Facie Case - 3 elements |
(i) Act by defendant
(ii) Intent (iii) Causation |
|
|
Intentional Tort Liability
Act by Defendant |
The “act” requirement for intentional tort liability refers to a volitional movement on defendant’s part.
|
|
|
Intentional Tort Liability
Intent |
The requisite intent for this type of tort liability may be either speciic or general.
|
|
|
Intentional Tort Liability
Speciic Intent |
An actor “intends” the consequences of his conduct if his goal in acting is to bring about these consequences.
|
|
|
Intentional Tort Liability
General Intent |
An actor “intends” the conseences of his conduct if he knows with substantial certainty that these consequences will result.
|
|
|
Intentional Tort Liability
Transferred Intent General Rule |
The transferred intent doctrine applies where the defendant intends to commit a tort against one person but instead
(i) commits a different tort against that person, (ii) commits the same tort as intended but against a different person, or (iii) commits a different tort against a different person. In such cases, the intent to commit a tort against one person is transferred to the other tort or to the injured person for purposes of establishing a prima facie case |
|
|
Intentional Tort Liability
Limitations of Transferred Intent |
Transferred intent may be invoked only where the tort intended and the tort that results are both within the following list:
a) Assault b) Battery c) False imprisonment d) Trespass to land and e) Trespass to chattels. |
|
|
Intentional Tort Liability
Causation |
The result giving rise to liability must have been legally caused by the defendant’s act or something set in motion thereby. The causation requirement will be satisfied where the conduct of defendant is a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.
|
|
|
Battery
Prima Facie Case - 3 elements |
i) An act by the defendant which brings about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person
ii) Intent on the part of the defendant to bring about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person and iii) Causation |
|
|
Assault
Prima Facie Case - 3 elements |
1) An act by the defendant creating a reasonable apprehension in plaintiff of immediate harmful or offensive contact to plaintiff’s person
2) Intent on the part of the defendant to bring about in the plaintiff apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff’s person and 3) Causation |
|
|
False Imprisonment
Prima Facie Case - 3 elements |
1) An act or omission to act on the part of the defendant that confines or restrains the plaintiff to a bounded area
2) Intent on the part of the defendant to confine or restrain the plaintiff to a bounded area and 3) Causation. |
|
|
False Imprisonment
Sufficient Methods of Confinement or Restraint |
1. Physical barriers
2. Physical Force 3. Force, Direct and Indirect against P or his immediate family or his property 4. Failure to provide means of escape 5. Invalid use of legal authority (False arrest) (P need not attempt to resist physical force) |
|
|
Felony Arrests Without A Warrant
Privileged... |
1) by a police officer: valid if officer has reasonable grounds to believe felony has been committed by the person being arrested
2) by a private citizen: valid only if a felony has in fact been committed an citizen has reasonable grounds to believe was committed by person being arrested |
|
|
Misdemeanor Arrests Without A Warrant
Privileged... |
if the misdemeanor was a breach of the peace and was committed in the presence of the arresting party - either police officer or private citizen.
|
|
|
Arrests to Prevent a Crime Without A Warrant
|
Where a felony or breach of the peace is in the process of being, or reasonably appears about to be committed, both police oficers and private citizens are privileged to make an arrest.
|
|
|
Arrests to Prevent a Crime Without A Warrant
Amount of Force Allowable |
Felony Arrest: that degree of force reasonably necessary to make the arrest; however, deadly force is permissible only when the suspect poses a threat of serious harm to the arresting party or others.
Misdemeanor Arrest: that degree of force necessary to effect the arrest, but never deadly force. |
|
|
False Imprisonment
Shopkeeper's Privilege - 3 elements |
(1) There must be a reasonable belief as to the fact of theft
(2) The detention must be conducted in a reasonable manner and only non-deadly force can be used and (3) The detention must be only for a reasonable period of time and only for the purpose of making an investigation. |
|
|
False Imprisonment
Insufficient Forms of Confinement or Restraint |
1. Moral Pressure
2. Future Threats |
|
|
False Imprisonment
Time of Confinement |
is immaterial, except as to the extent of damages.
|
|
|
False Imprisonment
Bounded Area |
Must be blocked in all directions.
An area is not considered "bounded" if there is a reasonable means of escape. |
|
|
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Prima Facie Case - 4 elements |
1) An act by defendant amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct
2) Intent on part of defendant to cause plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, or recklessness as to the effect of defendant’s conduct 3) Causation 4) Damages—severe emotional distress |
|
|
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Extreme and Outrageous Conduct |
“Outrageous conduct” is conduct that transcends all bounds of decency tolerated by society.
|
|
|
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Special Relationship Situations |
Common carriers and innkeepers owe special duties to their patrons that will be a basis for liability even when the act is something less than outrageous, e.g., bus
driver making insulting remarks to passenger |
|
|
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Known Sensitivity |
If defendant knows that plaintiff is more sensitive and thus more susceptible to emotional distress than the average person, liability will follow if the defendant uses extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally to cause such distress and succeeds. These rules may also apply where defendant’s conduct is directed at individals in certain groups such as children, pregnant women, and elderly people
|
|
|
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Intent / Causation in Bystander Cases Generally 3 elements required |
(i) The plaintiff was present when the injury occrred to the other person
(ii) The plaintiff was a close relative of the injured person and (iii) The defendant knew that the plaintiff was present and a close relative of the injured person. Note: The plaintiff does not need to establish presence or a family relationship if she shows that the defendant had a design or purpose to cause severe distress to plaintiff. |
|
|
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Special Liability for Mishandling Corpses |
Many courts have allowed recovery where mental
distress resulted from the intentional or reckless mishandling of a relative’s corpse. |
|
|
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Actual Damages Required |
Actual damages are required (nominal damages will not suffice). It it is not necessary to prove physical injuries to recover. It is, however, necessary to establish severe
emotional distress (i.e., more than a reasonable person could be expected to endure). Punitive damages are allowable where defendant’s conduct was improperly motivated. |
|
|
Trespass to Land
Prima Facie Case - 3 elements |
1) An act of physical invasion of plaintiff’s real property by defendant
2) Intent on defendant’s part to bring about a physical invasion of plaintiff’s real property and 3) Causation. |
|
|
Trespass to Land
Physical Invasion of P's Land - 2 ways |
1) D need not enter onto P's land; he could flood it, throw a rock on it or trim his rose bushes, leaving the trimmings.
Lawful Right of Entry Expires and D remains on the land |
|
|
Trespass to Land
Intent Required |
Mistake as to the lawfulness of the entry is no defense as long as defendant intended the entry upon that particlar piece of land.
Intent to trespass is not required—intent to enter onto the land is sufficient. |
|
|
Trespass to Land
No Requirement of Damages |
Damage is presumed therefore actual injury to the land is not an essential element of the cause of action.
|
|
|
Trespass to Chattels
Prima Facie Case - 4 elements |
1) An act of defendant that interferes with plaintiff’s right of possession in the chattel
2) Intent to perform the act bringing about the interference with plaintiff’s right of possession 3) Causation 4) Damages |
|
|
Trespass to Chattels
Act by Defendant |
Trespass to chattels is designed to protect a person against interferences with his right to possess his chattels. Hence, any act of interference will suffice. These generally take two forms:
1. Intermeddling - direct damage to P's chattel 2. Dispossession - of P's lawful right of possession Actual damage required (loss of actual possession suffices) |
|
|
Conversion
Prima Facie Case - 3 elements |
1) An act by defendant interfering with plaintiff’s right of possession in the chattel that is serious enough in nature or consequence to warrant that the defendant pay the full value of the chattel
2) Intent to perform the act bringing about the interference with plaintiff’s right of possession 3) Causation |
|
|
Acts of Conversion
|
One can act in such a way as to seriously invade another’s chattel interest in a variety of ways. These include:
1) Wrongful acquisition, e.g., theft, embezzlement. 2) Wrongful transfer, e.g., selling, misdelivering, pledging. 3) Wrongful detention, e.g., refusing to return to owner. 4) Substantially changing. 5) Severely damaging or destroying. 6) Misusing the chattel. |
|
|
Conversion
Bona Fide Purchaser May be Liable |
A bona fide purchaser of chattel may become a converter
if the chattel had been stolen from the true owner. |
|
|
Conversion
Accidental Conduct |
Accidentally causing damage to or loss of another’s chattel does not amount to conversion unless the actor was using the chattel without permission when the accident occurred.
(Note that the actor may be liable in negligence for accidental damage.) |
|
|
Conversion vs. Trespass to Chattels
Seriousness of Interference or Consequence |
If interference is not substantial, won't be considered a conversion. Serious enough interference may be deemed conversion, i.e., the longer the withholding
period and the more extensive the use of the chattel, the more likely it is that conversion has resulted. |
|
|
Conversion
Remedies - 2 |
Basic conversion remedies include:
1. Damages: fair market value as of the time and place of the conversion and D is given title upon satisfaction of Judgment (forced sale). Note that even if the D wishes to return the item, the P is not obligated to take it back once it has been converted. 2. Replevin: if the plaintiff wishes to have the chattel returned, he may get it by availing himself of the remedy of replevin. |
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Consent |
D is not liable for an otherwise tortious act if the P consented to the D's act. Consent may be given expressly it may also be implied from custom, conduct, or words, or by law.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Consent Express (actual) |
Express (actual) consent exists where the P has expressly shown a willingness to submit to D's conduct
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Consent by Mistake |
Where a P expressly consents by mistake, the consent is still a valid defense unless the D caused the mistake or knows of the mistake and takes advantage of it.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Consent Induced by Fraud |
If the expressly given consent has been induced by fraud, the consent generally is not a defense. The fraud must, however, go to an essential matter; if it is only with
respect to a collateral matter, the consent remains effective. |
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Consent Obtained by Duress |
Consent obtained by duress may be held invalid.
Note, however, that threats of future action or of some future economic deprivation do not constitute legal duress sufficient to invalidate the express consent. |
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Consent Implied |
P's consent may also be implied in a given case. There are two basic kinds of implied consent;
1) apparent consent and 2) consent implied by law. |
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Consent Apparent |
Apparent consent is that which a reasonable person would infer from P's conduct. Thus, for example, somebody who volntarily engages in a body contact
sport impliedly consents to the normal contacts inherent in playing it. |
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Consent Implied by Law |
Consent may be implied by law where action is necessary to save a person’s life or some other important interest in person or property.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Consent Capacity Required |
Incompetents, drunken persons, and very young children are deemed incapable of consent to tortious conduct. Consent of parent or guardian is necessary to constitute a defense in such a case.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Consent Criminal Acts |
For purposes of tort liability, the majority view is that a person cannot consent to a criminal act.
A minority and the Restatement of Torts take the contrary position and view consent to a criminal act as a valid defense in a civil action for an intentional tort. |
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Self-Defense |
When a person has reasonable grounds to believe that he is being, or is about to be, attacked, he may use such force as is reasonably necessary for protection against the potential injury.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Self-Defense When is this defense available? |
1. Reasonable Belief: apparent, not actual, necessity sufficient
2. Retaliation not allowed. 3. Retreat not necessary. 4. Not available to Aggressor: but, may use deadly force if other uses deadly force against him. |
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Self-Defense How much force may be used? |
One may use only that force that reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the harm. One may not use force likely to cause death or serious bodily injury unless he reasonably believes that he is in danger of serious bodily injury. If more force than necessary is used, the actor loses the privilege of self-defense.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Self-Defense Third Party Injuries |
If, in the course of reasonably defending himself, one accidentally injures a bystander, he is nevertheless protected by the defense. (he might, however, be liable to the bystander on a negligence theory if his conduct warranted it.) If the actor deliberately injures a bystander in trying to protect himself, he probably cannot raise the privilege of self-defense.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Defense of Others |
The actor need only have a reasonable belief that the person being aided would have the right of self-defense. Thus, even if the person aided has no defense (e.g., if he were the initial aggressor), his defender is not liable as long as he reasonably believed that the person aided could have used force to protect himself.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Defense of Others How much force? |
The defender, assuming he is justified, may use as much force as he could have used in self-defense if the injury were threatened to him
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Defense of Property |
Generally, one may use reasonable force to prevent the commission of a tort against her property.
1) Request to desist usually required 2) Effect of Mistake 3) Limited to preventing commission of a tort 4) Superseded by other privileges |
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Defense of Property Effect of Mistake |
Reasonable mistake is allowed as to the property owner’s right to use force in defense of property where the mistake involves whether an intrusion has occurred or whether a request to desist is required.
Not allowed where the entrant has a privilege to enter the property that supersedes the defense of property right |
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Defense of Property Superseded by Other Privileges |
Whenever an actor has a privilege to enter upon the land of another because of necessity, right of reentry, right to enter upon another’s land to recapture chattels, etc., that privilege supersedes the privilege of the land possessor to defend her property.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Defense of Property How Much Force? |
One may use reasonable force to defend property. However, she may not use force that will cause death or serios bodily harm. Nor can she use indirect deadly force such as a trap, spring gun, or vicious dog when such force could not lawfully be directly used, e.g., against a mere trespasser.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Reentry onto Land Common Law |
A person who had been tortiously dispossessed from
her land (by fraud or force) could use reasonable force to regain possession if she acted promptly upon discovering the dispossession. |
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Reentry onto Land Modern Law |
In most states today, there are summary procedures for recovering possession of real property. Hence, resort to “self-help” is no longer allowed. The owner who uses
force to retake possession is liable for whatever injury she inflicts. |
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Recapture of Chattels |
Where another’s possession began lawflly
(e.g., a conditional sale), one may use only peaceful means to recover the chattel. Force may be used to recapture a chattel only when in “hot pursuit” of one who has obtained possession wrongfully, e.g., by theft. Reasonable force, not including force sufficient to cause death or serios bodily harm, may be used to recapture chattels. |
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Recapture of Chattels Time Demand Required |
A demand to return the chattel must precede the use of force, unless the circumstances make it clear that the demand would be futile or dangerous.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Recapture of Chattels Recovery only from Wrongdoers |
The recapture may only be from a tortfeasor or some third person who knows or should know that the chattels were tortiously obtained. If the chattels have come to rest in the hands of an innocent party, this will cut off the actor’s privilege to use force to effect recapture.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Recapture of Chattels Entry Upon Land |
Where chattels are located on the land of the wrongdoer, the owner is privileged to enter upon the land and reclaim them at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner. It is generally required that there be a demand for the return of the chattels before any such entry.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Recapture of Chattels On Land of Innocent Party |
When the chattels are on the land of an innocent party, the owner may enter and reclaim her chattel at a reasonable time and in a peaceful manner when the landowner has been given notice of the presence of the chattel and refuses to return it. In this case, the chattel owner will be liable for any actal damage caused by entry.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Recapture of Chattels On Land Through Owner's Fault |
If the chattels are on the land of another through the owner’s fault, there is no privilege to enter upon the land. They may be recovered only through legal process.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Privilege of Arrest |
Depending on the facts of the particlar case, one may have a privilege to make an arrest of a third person.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Privilege of Arrest Invasion of Land |
The privilege of arrest carries with it the privilege to enter another’s land for the purpose of effecting the arrest.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Privilege of Arrest Subsequent Misconduct |
Although the arrest itself may be privileged, the actor may still be liable for subsequent misconduct, e.g., failing to bring the arrested party before a magistrate, unduly detaining the party in jail, etc.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Privilege of Arrest Mistake |
One who makes an arrest under the mistaken belief that it is privileged may be liable for false imprisonment.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Necessity |
A person may interfere with the real or personal property of another where the interference is reasonably and apparently necessary to avoid threatened injury from a natral or other force and where the threatened injury is substantially more serious than the invasion that is undertaken to avert it.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Necessity Public |
Where the act is for the public good (e.g., shooting a rabid dog), the defense is absolute.
|
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Necessity Private |
Where the act is solely to benefit a limited number of people (e.g., the actor ties up his boat to another’s doc in a storm), the defense is qualified, i.e., the actor must pay for any injury he causes.
Exception: The defense is absolute if the act is to benefit the owner of the land |
|
|
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Discipline |
A parent or teacher may use reasonable force in disciplining children, taking into account the age and sex of the child and the seriousness of the behavior.
|
