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

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


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

89 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
4 elements of Battery?
1) Offensive or harmful/injurious
2) Contact
3) (that is) Intentional
4) Caused by D's action

Or CHIA (Contact, harmful, intentional, action)
What determines "Offensive" in Battery?
"Offensive" is determined by the prevailing standards of acceptable touching in that place

Whether "an ordinary person not unduly sensitive as to his dignity" would've been offended
If P is oddly sensitive about their hands, and you touch them there, is it Battery?
Courts are split, but regardless D must KNOW about P's bizarro obsession to be liable.
What constitutes "harmful/injurious" in Battery?
Bodily harm/injury OR pain
What is the Doctrine of Extended Personality in Battery?
Battery may be committed not only by contact with P's body, but also by contact with clothing, object P is holding, or anything else so closely associated with body that touching it is as offensive as body contact. SEE Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel.
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel (1967)(Supreme Court of Texas)
Black P had plate ripped out of his hand by employee of hotel that objected to serving blacks. Battery by Doctrine of Extended Personality.
What constitutes "Contact" in Battery?
Courts look for something of [literal] substance:
* SPLIT: Smoke particles may count [Leichtman], or may not [North Carolina]
* Sound doesn't count, even if your ears are bleeding... Too fuckin' bad, loser.
If D thinks he is hitting James, but is hitting Lindsay instead, is there Intent for Battery?
Yes. Intent applies to the action, not the target. If D intents to cause harm/offense, that is sufficient.
INSANITY: If D thinks she is kissing Chris, but she is actually chewing his bleeding lips off, is there Intent for Battery?
No. No intent to cause injury--simply craving for flesh.
If Dr. Z goes to perform sex change on Iggy, but chops Lindsay's dong instead, is there Intent for Battery?
Yes. Z intended to cause harm, and had consent from Iggy, but not from Lindsay. No consent = Battery. (Everyone throw up now)
What is the Eggshell Skull Rule as it pertains to Battery?
If D intended to cause minor injury, but causes major injury instead, D is liable for it all. Tough shit.
Must D be completely certain that he will cause injury with his Intentional action to constitute Battery?
No. Substantial certainty is enough.
* D bombs plane to kill one person -- DUMB. "You'll kill us all!" Each passenger can sue, as it is substantially certain that they would be injured. [Get it? No direct intent, but foreseeable.]
Chris can't throw for shit, but chucks a pen at James' face and miraculously rips his eye out. Battery?
Yes. No question of certainty if there is clear Intent. Chris intended the throw and the harm.
Aaron keeps chloroform in the bar, but forgets that he put it in the bottle of Rye. He serves it to Lindsay, who passes out and busts his ass. Battery?
No, because of the Recklessness/Negligence on Aaron's part. He had no intent to injure or offend, and there was no substantial certainty. [Sue in negligence.]
If Chris throws the pen at James' face, but hits Judy in the ear, is it still Battery?
Yes. This is Transferred Intent. He had intent to cause injury, and that intent transfers to the injured party. Sue Judy Sue.
1) Guy moves chair to be funny. Causes injury.
2) Sleepwalker hurts someone.
3) James hires Moron, who hurts self with electroshock machine.
4) Iggy stabs Kama, thinking she is his Dirty Whore friend.
1) Yes--intended offensive conduct.
2) No--no intent.
3) No--no intent.
4) Yes. Intended to cause harm, even though Kama is actually an UGLY Whore.
Is Consent a defense to Battery?
Yes. If the act is illegal, a FEW courts may say no, but generally Consent is a full defense. [Make sure it is REAL Consent -- no "Dude! Mental Age of 18!"]
If Starbucks knows that 1 in 50,000 coffees cause anal herpes, is it Battery if they keep serving them and Fryman wins the ass lottery?
No. In most jurisdictions, you have to look at the individual sale of coffee. No aggregating allowed.

A few courts say that this MAY be substantial certainty.
Can Professor Lee get out of a Battery charge by proving he is insane or a tard?
No. Insanity or diminished capacity is no defense to the Intent element if Lee was capable of forming an intent to commit the act which caused the harm.
Does Reidenberg need to know he was raped during the camping trip while he was sleeping to sue for battery?
No. Iggy is still guilty of battery (and rape).
Can Contributory Negligence/Comparative Fault be used as a defense for Intentional Torts?
Nope. If you intend to hurt someone, you can't say "hey--they shouldn't have been so damn stupid!"
What are the 3 elements of Assault?
2) with INTENT to cause *apprehension* of imminent contact that is harmful/offensive and
3) CAUSES that apprehension

The C.I.A.
Beach v. Hancock
D pointed unloaded gun at P, and argues that there was no intent to harm. Court says that for ASSAULT, apprehension of harm is more important than actual risk of harm.
Can D Assault an unconscious person?
No. Think. If P is asleep, how can they feel apprehension?
Does the feeling of apprehension have to be reasonable to count as Assault?
SPLIT: Most courts say apprehension must be reasonable, but Restatement says intent to cause apprehension is enough.
Does Mr. T need to be afraid of Caroline to claim apprehension?
No. Apprehension is not the same as fear. If Mr. T KNOWS Caroline is threatening him, that is enough. Pretend that apprehension means "is aware of."
If James calls Lindsay in Italy and threatens him, is that Assault?
No. The threat/words must be of imminent contact. SEE Brooker.
Brooker -- what happened?
Customer threatens phone operator. Court finds that, generally, words alone cannot constitute Assault.
Can a Peacenik claim Assault if a quadriplegic veteran threatens to kick his hippie ass?
No. P cannot recover for Assault if D had no present ability to carry out the threatened contact. "I'll bite your legs off!"
If D stands outside P's car and threatens her, is that Assault?
Probably. Words alone CAN be Assault if taken together with circumstances. SEE Vetter v. Morgan
Vetter v. Morgan
Lady gets shit from kids in a van. She's alone, it is nighttime, and they seem pretty serious. They threatened her ass, and she felt reasonably apprehensive. Counts as Assault.
If Lindsay threatens James, but he can just walk away (and does), is it still Assault?
Yes. If James is a pathetic loser, he can bring a suit for Assault: Lindsay acted, intending to cause apprehension of harmful contact, and James felt apprehensive. What a pussy.
Dr. Z helps Iggy to rape Reidy in his sleep on a camping trip. Dr. Z then passes out in the tent next to him, buzzing softly. Reidy wakes up, and is afraid that she'll touch him. Assault?
Yes. Z aided and abetted, but that doesn't matter. What counts is that she helped create a circumstance where Reidy would be apprehensive of her touching him. Yes to ACT (creating situation and laying next to him), yes to INTENT (same) and yes to CAUSE.
Chris throws a pen at James' face, intending to hit him, but he dodges it with lightning ninja skill. Tort?
The intended Battery converts to Assault under the Transferred Intent Doctrine.
The Transferred Intent Doctrine allows for transfer between which personal torts?
Assault, Battery and False Imprisonment.
The Transferred Intent Doctrine allows for transfer between which property torts?
Trespass to land and trespass to chattel
Lindsay intends to stab a certain byatch from behind, but she turns around and sees the knife as it comes at her. Tort?
He intended Battery, but she sees the knife and feels apprehensive -- Assault. (Roll again Lindsay -- need 1D20 for Critical Strike)
What are the elements of False Imprisonment (Restatement)?
2) Intending to confine P w/o consent or authority of law
3) D CAUSES P to be confined
4) P is aware of the confinement at the time (SPLIT)
Is awareness of confinement necessary for False Imprisonment?
SPLIT: Some courts say awareness is unnecessary, some say that P must prove awareness OR harm as a result.
Does False Imprisonment require intent to confine?
Yes. If D unintentionally confines individual, different tort (negligent confinement, which requires physical harm).
Judy places Lindsay in the Torts room, and blocks one of the doors. False Imprisonment?
No. Go out the other door!
Judy places Lindsay in the Torts room, and blocks both of the doors. False imprisonment?
Probably. The only other way out is the window. Lindsay simply must prove that leaving by the window is either dangerous or offensive to his dignity.
Judy puts a blind woman in the Torts room, tells her there is only one door, and claims that there is no other exit. False imprisonment?
Yes. If the woman doesn't know about the other door, she can claim imprisonment.
Iggy places Dr. Z in his closet, and threatens to hurt her if she tries to leave. False Imprisonment?
Yes. Threats of immediate harm suffice, as well as threats to Z's family or Property.
Aaron tells a customer that he'll call the police if the guy tries to leave the bar. False imprisonment?
No. Threats to call police is not sufficient. SEE Fojtik v. Charter Medical Corp.
Fojtik v. Charter Medical Corp. (1999) (TX Court of Appeals)
P was not "allowed" to leave rehab, but was given daypasses. When P asked to leave, rehab threatened to call the police. Don't be a baby--that isn't enough to count as False Imprisonment.
James pulls out his EMS badge, and says that he is using his super-secret police powers to arrest Kama and places her in shackles. False Imprisonment?
Yes. This is an unlawful assertion of legal authority. EMS CAN detain sometimes, but this particular way is not legal.

[Ed. Note - this last bit is a) a fact and b) about CPR School. Do not mention on exam - Lindsay]
Elements of Malicious Prosecution
1) Instigator acted without Probable Cause to believe allegation
2) Malice or Ill Will toward P

[Plus, 3) P. must have been found innocent
4) D. must've been the but-for cause of the prosecution happening]
Chris claims that Lindsay sexually assaulted him, though he knows it is totally false and disgusting. Malicious Prosecution?
Yes, so long as Lindsay can prove that Chris acted without probable cause AND that he had malice or ill will toward Lindsay.
PLUS Lindsay must show that, but for Chris' action, no case would have been brought against him AND the case in question terminated in a way that declared him Innocent.
Elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
1) D ACTS outrageously
2) With INTENT (or Recklessness) to cause extreme emotional distress
3) and CAUSES extreme emotional distress
What defines "outrageous conduct" in IIED?
"Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim 'Outrageous!'"
What are three aggravating factors for IIED?
1) D is in a position of power over P (boss, professor, caretaker)
2) P is known to be unusually susceptible to that conduct
3) One act is not outrageous, but act is done so many times that it becomes outrageous
Do courts require a physical manifestion in order to prove Extreme Emotional Distress?
SPLIT: Some courts require P to provide evidence of physical manifestations of EED (nursing mother stops lactating).

Restatement does not require evidence of physical manifestation, but is otherwise pro-boob.
Dickens v. Puryear
Lindsay's dad quietly smokes a cigar and watches while his cousin ties a guy to a tree and beat the livin' shit out of him. Then they threaten kill his ass if he doesn't move in 30 days. Too late for Battery (SOL therefore SOL), too much time for Assault. BUT IIED works just right, but only for threat for death 30 days later.
WTF is Third-Party IIED?
"It wasn't directed at me, but I felt distress too!" Usually no good, but one exception: if an undertaker intentionaly mishandles a corpse
Does Doctrine of Transferred Intent apply to IIED?
No way, José. We'd all be suing Iggy for his skeezy ways. Causes too much litigation.
When Consent is used as a defense to an intentional tort, by what standard is it determined?
It is determined objectively, by the reasonable person standard. In O'Brien v. Cunard S.S., Irish dumb ass gets an injection and claims she did not consent. BUT she raised her arm to the doctor, so there you go.
Can one consent to illegal activity that would otherwise be an intentional tort?
SPLIT: Majority says P can still recover. Minority says no way--you consented, so tough luck.
If Peyton Manning gets punched in the face on the field, can he sue for Battery?
Yes. Most courts say that athletes can recover for injuries that result from willful, intentional acts to injure (must be more than simply a violation of the rules).
Iggy doesn't know he got anal herpes from Starbucks, and gives it to Lee while consensually catching. Battery?
No. He doesn't know, so no intent.
Iggy doesn't know he got anal herpes from Starbucks, and gives it to Lee while consensually catching. Lee says "no consent--I didn't know!" True?
Consent is still good, because it was a mutual mistake. SEE Doe v. Johnson.
Doe v. Johnson (CA, 1993)
P and D have sex. D has AIDS, but doesn't know it. P becomes HIV+, and sues. D claims consent. Consent is valid--mutual mistake.
P gets surgery for appendix; Dr. also decides to perform sex change. Ok?
Not ok. Medical consent is limited, unless the document specifically expands it. Sue to get the wiener back. SEE Kennedy v. Parrott.
Marcus has a heart attack, and Judy does proper CPR, saves her, but breaks two ribs. Ok?
Yes. Consent was implied, Judy acted within proper scope, etc. We'll talk about Good Samaritan later.
What is the main counter to a defense of Consent?
Duress. If duress was due to an imminent threat, the consent is invalid.
Kennedy v. Parrott (1956)(NC)
Lady needs to get a basic surgery, but doctor does additional work that was not consented to originally. Consent only applies to particular area of planned surgery, unless major emergency arises (then implied consent).
In re Conroy
1) There is a right to refuse life-saving or life-sustaining medical treatment
2) There is a right to die of natural causes
3) There is NO right to kill yourself
3 levels of proof to withdraw treatment from incompetent patients (In re Conroy)
1) Clear proof (DNR, etc.)
2) SOME evidence + burden of life > benefits
* Testimony from others; old letters
3) NO evidence + burden of life > benefits AND keeping them alive is inhumane
At trial, which party has the burden of proof for self-defense?
The defendant.
Chris sees Lindsay being roughed up by two midgets. He steps on them to defend Lindsay, but they were super-secret Government NatSec agents. Defense?
SPLIT: Majority says Chris "steps into the shoes" of Lindsay, so no defense for mistake of fact.
Minority says if the use of force was reasonable, Chris has a defense.
Lindsay is getting gang-raped by triple amputees. Chris shoots at them to protect him, but misses and hits the Pope. Defense?
Yes. If Chris was privileged to use force, the privilege will shield him from liability to the Emperor.
James sets up a tripwire-triggered laser to kill intruders on his abandoned banana plantation. Permissible?
No. Must only use reasonable force to protect real property. (We all know the crim law domicile exception).
James puts up a sign saying "If on my plantation you trespass, you'll get a ray-gun up the ass." Iggy wants the bananas, and gets turned to ash. Defense?
No. Posting a warning does not change the standard for use of force.
James owns a house, and trains murderous rats to attack intruders. Dr. Z trespasses and gets killed. What is the FIRST question about the house?
Was the house occupied? If Z was a burglar in a domicile, lethal force permissible if there is no other option. In general, no duty to retreat. SEE Katko v. Briney.
Katko v. Briney
The Spring Gun Case. Owner placed spring gun in house to shoot intruders. Claims it was only to scare them. No good in the hood, as the house was abandoned.
Chris takes James' watch, and James' begins pursuit. May he wring Chris' scrawny little neck?
Yes. If the force is reasonable (not deadly), and James is in "hot pursuit," he may use force to recover chattels. BUT, if he is wrong about Chris stealing, he has no Mistake of Fact defense. Ha ha... SEE Jones v. Fisher -- not in these cards
In order for an arrest with a warrant to be legal, what 3 things must the police officer prove?
1) The warrant is directed at the specific cop/official
2) The warrant describes the person to be arrested
3) The person actually arrested is the correct person
Chris sees Lindsay beat Kama in the face with a baseball bat. He steps in to make an arrest. Legal?
Yes. If the felony was actually committed, Chris is permitted to effect an arrest.
Chris sees Lindsay commit a misdemeanor against Kama. May he effect an arrest?
Yes. If Chris saw the minor crime occur, he may arrest Lindsay. However, if he is incorrect, Mistake of Fact will not be a defense.
Lindsay owns a porn store in Brooklyn, and suspects that James is trying to shoplift the Choco-Donkey Choade Patented Butt-Plug. May he detain James?
Yes. The "Shopkeeper's Privilege" says that he may detain a person who has stolen or is trying to steal property if:
1) It is a reasonable belief that James is doing so
2) He only detains for a reasonable time
3) He detains in a reasonable manner
What two factors are balanced to determine the standard for public or private necessity?
The property interest of P is balanced with the potential harm to D, the Public, or a third-party.
In order to prevent a meteor from hitting Manhattan, Chris hacks NASA and puts the vacant International Space Station into its path first. Defense?
Public necessity. He was acting to protect the public as a whole.
Is Chris' destruction of the International Space Station to save Manhattan a complete privilege?
Yes. He does not need to pay for it.
Chris moves the International Space Station into the path of a meteor to save Manhattan, but he miscalculates and both are destroyed. Defense?
Yes. Chris will not be held liable, even if he made a mistake, provided the necessity of the circumstances made the course of action seem reasonable. SEE Surocco v. Geary
Surocco v. Geary (1853) (Supreme Court of CA)
Fire Marshal Bill orders Surocco's house blown up to stop the spread of fire. Psych! Didn't help at all! He is not liable, though, because he has complete privilege under the doctrine of public necessity.
James' space shuttle is failing, so he lands it on the Fordham Atrium, causing damage. Must he pay for it?
Yes. Under private necessity, James is exercising an Incomplete Privilege. If he causes damage, he must pay for it.
James' space shuttle is failing AGAIN, so he lands it on Lindsay's upstate property but causes no damage. May Lindsay sue for trespass?
No. Private necessity is a defense if James causes no property damage. SEE Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co.
Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. (1910)(Supreme Court of MN)
Big storm comes, so D ties his boat to P's dock without permission. Causes damage, but that is ok. No trespass under Private Necessity, but he must pay for the damage.
Chris' computer is about to crash, ruining his Skyrates game, so he rips a power cable out of the Fordham wall, causing $10,000 in damage. Defense?
No. Even private necessity fails, as there is a cost-benefit analysis.