Torts2

Front 1

Battery

Back 1

Definition: Intentional unpriveleged harmful or offensive contact of another. Elements: 1) Intent to cause harmful or offensive contact or imenent apprehension of
2) Harmful or offensive contact occurs

Front 2

Offensive contact?
Leihtman v. WLW

Back 2

Contact that Offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity
(tabacco smoke case)

Front 3

Vosburg v. Putney

Back 3

Intent to harm not necesary(only intent to contact) if intent is unlawful the intent to commit the unlawful act must also be unlawful. Eggshell plaintiff rule, (kidkicks other kid in shin)

Front 4

Garratt v. Dailey

Back 4

Intent is satisfied if the person committing the act knows to a substantial certanty the result will occur (kid pulls chair, elderly woman falls)

Front 5

Subjective Intent

Back 5

D acts for the purpose of causing contact

Front 6

Constructive Intent

Back 6

D acts w/ knowledge to a substantial certainty that contact will occur

Front 7

Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel

Back 7

A battery is committed when contact occurs with something closely associated with ones person. (D grabbed plate P was holding, harm was offensive)

Front 8

Assault

Back 8

1) Intent to put the other in imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact
2) The other is thereby put in imminent apprehension

Front 9

Read v. Coker

Back 9

an assault is committed when there is a threat of violence exhibiting an intention to assault with a present ability to carry out the threat (D asked p to leave, men rolled up their sleaves ect and said they would break his neck if he did not leave)

Front 10

Beach v. Hancock

Back 10

Unloaded gun. Apparent present ability to carry out threat is assault. P did not know gun was not loaded, but was reasonably put in imminent apprehension, it did not matter the gun was not actually loaded.

Front 11

False Imprisonment

Back 11

1) Intent to confine a person 2) the act results in confinement 3) the other is conscious of confinement or is harmed by it

Front 12

Whitakker v. Sanford

Back 12

for false imprisonment, It is not necesary that D apply physical force to P, only requires that P is physically restrained. (Religous Sect refused boat to woman trying to leave palatial yacht)

Front 13

Rougeaue v. Firestone

Back 13

(security guard theft inquiry case, P was allowed to leave when he said he was sick) you must test your confinement, no confinement if you seemingly consent

Front 14

Coblyn v. Kennedy

Back 14

(Old man thought to have been shoplifting). There were no reasonable grounds to restrain, therefore there was false imprisonment. The man was restrained of his personal liberty by fear of personal difficulty. Any demonstration of physical power which can only be avoided by submission, constitutes false imprisonment

Front 15

Shopkeeper's privelege

Back 15

Reasonable grounds for detainment, in a reasonable manner, and only for a reasonable amount of time.

Front 16

Sindle v. New York Transit

Back 16

a person falsey detained is not relieved of his duty of reasonable care when extracating himself from the unlawful detention. (14 yr ld boy jumped/fell out of school bus window)

Front 17

Intentional Infliction of Emtotional Distress

Back 17

1) extreme & outrageous conduct 2) Intent to inflict ED or Reckless should have known ED would result 3) P suffers EED 4) ED is objectivley reasonable

Front 18

State Rubbish Collectors v. Siliznoff

Back 18

a cause of action is established when it is shown that one in the absence of privilege intentionally subjects another to the mental suffering incident to serious threats are made under such circumstances as to constitute a technical assault

Front 19

Sams v. Eccles

Back 19

D's conduct was extreme & outrageous and he Should have known ED would result (D made numerous sexual advances to P a married woman and exposed himself to her)

Front 20

Taylor v. Metzger

Back 20

(i) a jury could find that a single racial comment directed against a subordinate employee by a supervisor could constitute the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Supervisor called employee Jungle Bunny.)

Front 21

Jones v. Clinton

Back 21

To establish a claim of IIED a p must prove that the conduct complained of was extreme and outrageous and utterly intolerable in a civilized society & P must suffer ED (President made sexual advances to P but stopped when requested, and there was no ED.)

Front 22

Butterfield v. Forrester

Back 22

(pole accross the road, D riding "violently") One person being in fault will not excuse the other from using ordinary care for himself. (case allows for recovery even if p was also negligent)

Front 23

Davies v. Mann

Back 23

(ass in the road) Defendant was bound to go along the road at a pace likely to prevent mischief.
The holding in this case has developed into the doctrine of last clear chance, where if the defendant had the opportunity to avoid the accident after the opportunity was no longer available to the plaintiff, the defendant has a duty to do so or else he will bear the loss.

Front 24

Meistrich v. Casino Arena Attractions, Inc.

Back 24

The term assumption of risk has 2 meanings. In its primary sense, it is a denial of breach of duty by the D, and so the burden of proof is on the P. In its secondary sense, it is a defense by a negligent D against p's recovery based on contributory negligence, and the burden of proof is on the D.. If the jury found that an ordinarily prudent person would have undertaken the same risks, then there is no contributory negligence

Front 25

Duty to Rescue

Back 25

is relianced based:
can be generated by begining to rescue, inn keepers, summer camps ect. common carriers