Torts I Midterm (Mc Barbs Remix)

Front 1

Intentional Torts

Back 1

1. True intent - the Defendant intended to do the act and intended the result of his/her act.

OR

2. Substantial Certainty Test - the Defendant intended to do an act with knowledge amounting to a substantial certainty that the result would occur.

Note: whether there was a "substantial certainty" is a question of fact decided by the trier of fact.

Front 2

Battery

Back 2

1) An Act
2) Intent (True Intent or Substantial Certainty)
3) to Cause
a) Offensive [RPP std] OR b) Harmful contact
4) Such contact occurs

Front 3

Assault

Back 3

(1) Act
(2) Intent (True Intent or Substantial Certainty)
(3) Apprehension of Imminent Contact.

Apprehension - expectation, apparent ability
Contact - Harmful or Offensive

Front 4

Trespass to Land

Back 4

(1) Act
(2) Intent
(3) that causes an entry[by the D or an object]
(4) onto land of another

Remember: Def's ignorance/mistake as to the ownership of the land is NOT a defense!

Front 5

Trespass to Chattel

Back 5

(1) Act
(2) Intent
(3) in exercising dominion and control over
(4) personal property of another

Front 6

Conversion

Back 6

If the interference with the Pltf's property rights is PERMANENT (or extended for a long enough period of time) = conversion

**Remember: borrowing something and never returning it can become a conversion

Front 7

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Back 7

1. Act
2. Intent (intended, reasonably calculated, or reckless disregard)
3. Outrageous (obj. reas. test, more than mere insult, det. by circumstances and P's vulnerability)
4. Suffers extreme emotional distress (physical manifestation required UNLESS direct victim or close relative)

Front 8

False Imprisonment

Back 8

(1) An intentional act
(2) to detain the Pltf (physical or psychological)
(3) in a bounded area
(4) without their consent

Detainment can be proven by physical OR psychological force(s) or by an affirmative act OR omission. So, look at the facts and do a thorough analysis.

Additionally, the bounded area is open for analysis too! Courts have held a room or even a city will qualify for this. So, argue whichever side he asks you/whichever makes the most logical sense.

Also, if the Pltf has a reasonable means of escape = no tort!

Length of detainment ONLY affects damages, not a prima facie case. Can be a short period, but longer periods = more damages!

Front 9

Malicious Prosecution / Abuse of Process

Back 9

Malicious prosecution = an underlying criminal case
Abuse of process = an underlying civil case

(1) Commencement or continuation of a proceeding/suit against the Pltf
(2) That was brought for an improper purpose (shown by lack of probable cause)
(3) with actual malice (usually inferred from element 2)
(4) and was resolved in the Pltf's favor.

*”special injury” always met for criminal, not always for civil process*

Remember that the "actual malice" element is often subsumed in the lack of probable cause/improper purpose.

Front 10

Assault (Conditional Threat)

Back 10

Must NOT be neutral (negated by threat) -- no immediate apprehension

Must NOT be a lawful condition -- one that D has the right to impose

Front 11

Trespass to Land (Damages)

Back 11

Damages are nominal unless "actual damage" is shown

Front 12

Trespass to Chattel Damages

Back 12

For a temporary interference - Pltf gets fair RENTAL value for the time lost

For minor damage to a chattel - Pltf gets the diminution in value due to the damage to the chattel

For and extended/permanent interference (conversion) - Pltf gets the fair market value of the chattel

Front 13

IIED Bystander Exception

Back 13

Closely-related persons can recover WITHOUT a showing of physical manifestations.
--->This is based on a policy rationale that we can be pretty certain that they will have suffered severe ED from witness the outrageous conduct.

However, if the bystander is NOT closely-related, we will make them demonstrate physical manifestation.
--->This is simply because we want to be certain they are not faking their ED.

Front 14

Shopkeeper's Privelege

Back 14

This is a LIMITED defense to False Imprisonment.

A shopkeeper may detain a person for a REASONABLE amount of time and for REASONABLE purposes/scope.

Requires PROBABLE CAUSE and must be PROPORTIONAL.

Front 15

Mali Pros / Abuse of Process
Minority Rule - Special Injury

Back 15

English rule - requires a special injury.
Special injury must be more than the normal cost/annoyance of defending a lawsuit. Also, damage to reputation is typically NOT sufficient (alone) to meet the special injury requirement.

American rule - has NOT adopted the special injury

Argument AGAINST adding the special injury element: we want to keep the courts open and allow people access so they can vindicate their rights

Argument FOR adding the special injury element: deter frivolous lawsuits

Front 16

Transferred Intent

Back 16

Rule: (universally recognized)

So long as Δ had the requisite intent with respect to one person, Δ will be held to have committed an intentional tort against any other person who happens to be injured

Front 17

Transferred Intent 2

Back 17

Intended victim --> Actual victim
(Singer v. Marx dirt clod case)

Intended common law tort --> Actually committed common law tort
Ex: Δ intends to scare Π in the crosswalk by revving the engine, but forgets to take the car out of drive and bumps Π with the car, resulting in a harmful contact (i.e. battery). The requisite intent to assault (i.e. create imminent apprehension of harmful contact) transfers to cover the intent to batter (even though it was an accident that Δ actually hit Π with the car).

Front 18

IIED Public Figure (ACTUAL MALICE)

Back 18

Rule for Actual Malice:
• Π must prove (by clear and convincing evidence) that Δ:
• Made a false statement
• The statement was published; AND
• Δ knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for its the truth


Ex. Hustler v. Falwell Case

There is an interest in protecting speech that attacks those who open themselves up to attack by “thrusting” themselves into the public eye =
“Vortex thrusters”. Π cannot recover without showing ACTUAL MALICE because Π is a public figure.