Torts

Front 1

What is the definition of Intent?

Back 1

A person acts intentionally where he (a) desires to cause the consequences of his act or
(b) the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.

Front 2

What are the types of tortious intent?

Back 2

Specific intent, general intent, and transferred intent

Front 3

What is specific intent?

Back 3

exists where the defendant acts desiring that his conduct cause the resulting consequences

Front 4

What is general intent?

Back 4

exists where the defendant acts knowing with substantial (a somewhat lesser degree than specific intent) that his conduct will cause the resulting consequences.

Front 5

What is transferred intent?

Back 5

It exists in certain cases where the defendant intends tortious conduct against one party but the resulting harm is caused upon another party. In these instances, irrespective of motive, the defendant's intent is said to be transferred from the intended party to the party actually harmed.

Front 6

When is an actor subect to liability for battery?

Back 6

(A)(1) He acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of another or third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and 2) An offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.

Front 7

Is there tort liability for battery where an actor causes harmful or offensive contact without intent?

Back 7

NOPE!

Front 8

If an actor offensively touches anything that is close to or connected to the plaintiff's body then he?

Back 8

Commits a battery

Front 9

What is indirect causation?

Back 9

Indirect causation exists where the defendant sets in motion the harm-producing force.

Front 10

What is direct causation

Back 10

The main thrust of direct causation is that there are no intervening causes between an act and the resulting harm.

Front 11

True or False? To commit a battery, a plaintiff need not be aware of the offensive contact and need not prove damages.

Back 11

True

Front 12

When is an actor is subject to liablity to another if

Back 12

(a) He acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of another or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact and (2) The other person is thereby put in such imminent apprehension.

Front 13

Herman holds a knife to Gretchen's throat & threatens to hurt her. Has he committed assault?

Back 13

Yes.

Front 14

Charlie throws a rock at Nancy and misses. If she knew Charlie threw the rock what tort has Charlie committed?

Back 14

He has committed assault.

Front 15

Leslie, a bank robber , points a gun into a crowded bank and says, "Everyone lie down and keep quiet or else I'll shoot." Is the conditional assault a threat?

Back 15

Yes.

Front 16

What are the elements of false imprisonment?

Back 16

1) Actor acts intending to confine a person within certain fixed boundaries
2) his act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement of the other and 3) the other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it.

Front 17

What is an exception to False Imprisonment?

Back 17

A defendant may be liable for false imprisonment if he confines a child or a mentally incompetant person, even where the confinee is not aware of the confinement. Also shop-keepers and bar-keepers.

Front 18

Unlawful arrest, what's the big deal?

Back 18

It may constitute false imprisonment, since the resulting confinement is without proper legal authority. Confinement can result no matter how brief a time interval is involved.

Front 19

What is the Shopkeeper's Privilege?

Back 19

No action for false imprisonment will lie against a shopkeeper who detains a suspected shoplifter if: 1. There are reasonable grounds to believe that a theft has ocurred. 2. the detention is conducted in a reasonable manner and 3. the detention is limited to a reasonable period of time to make an investigation. (A "bounded" area prevents freedom of movement in all direction by providing no reasonable means of escape. Actual physical boundaries are not required, however.

Front 20

When is someone liable for causing intentional infliction of mental ditress?

Back 20

One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional harm to the other person results from it, for such bodily harm. The plaintiff must prove actual damages although physical injury is not required.

Front 21

Negligent Inflication of Emotional Distress is where the defendant's negligence causes only mental disturbance, without accompanying physical injury, illness or other physical consequences, & the great majority of courts hold there can be no recovery. What are the exceptions?

Back 21

1.Negligent Transmission of a Message- misinforming plaintiff that a family member has died. 2. Negligent mishandling of corpses

Front 22

Trespass to Land, what is it?

Back 22

One is subject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected interest of the other if he intentionally 1) enters the land in the possession of the other, or causes a thing or a third person to do so or 2) remains on the land or 3) fails to remove from the land the thing under a duty to remove.

Front 23

If James is hits a baseball in his neighbor Chris' yard intentionally has he committed trespass?

Back 23

Yes.

Front 24

Chris calls James and asks James to remove a baseball that James accidently hit onto her land. If James fails to remove the baseball, he may be liable for trespass. True or False?

Back 24

True.

Front 25

Is mistake of ownership a defense to trespass of land?

Back 25

No.

Front 26

What is a priviledged entry?

Back 26

In cases involving "public" and "private" necessity, a party is privileged to trespass on the property of the other. However, the defendant is liable for damage to land and property.

Front 27

A trespass to a chattel may be committed by intentionally....?

Back 27

1) Dispossessing another of the chattel
2) using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another.

Front 28

How may a trespass to a chattel be committed?

Back 28

By intentionally 1) dispossessing another of the chattel or 2) uaing or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another.

Front 29

For trespass to chattels a plaintiff must generally prove damages

Back 29

1) in the actual amount caused by the tortious conduct or 2) in the case of dispossession by the loss of use.

Front 30

The difference between trespass to chattels & conversion is one of _________.

Back 30

degree. The seriousness of the interference determines which tort applies.

Front 31

If Vera mistakenly thought that Dorothy would allow her to borrow her handbag, as sorotity sisters commonly shared clothing and accessories. Even if her mistake is justified, is she still guilty?

Back 31

Yes. Vera may still be liable for trespass to chattels.

Front 32

What is conversion?

Back 32

Conversion is the intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which seriously interferes with the right of another to control it.

Front 33

How are damages measured for chattel that has been converted?

Back 33

Damages are measured by the full value of the chattel at the time of conversion. Alternatively, the plaintiff may seek recovery of the property itself, in which case the remedy is replevin.

Front 34

What types of property may be converted?

Back 34

Only tangible or intangible personal property may be converted. Real property is not converted, but it may be adversely possessed or trespassed upon.

Front 35

What are the factors in determining the seriousness of the interference to decide whether the defendant has to pay full value due to coversion?

Back 35

1) the extent and duration of the defendant's exercise of dominion or control 2) the defendant's intent to assert a right in fact inconsistent with the other's right of control 3) the defendant's good faith 4) the extent and duration of the resulting interference with the plaintiff's right of control. 5) the harm done to the chattel 6) the inconveinience and expense caused to the plaintiff

Front 36

Can you name all of the defenses to Intentional Torts to Persons or Property?

Back 36

priviledge, mistake, consent, self defense, defense of others, defense of property, recapture of chattels, forcible entry on land, necessity, private necessity, legal process, arrest without a warrant, discipline, immunity

Front 37

A privilege may exist where:

Back 37

1) The person affected by the defendant's conduct consents
2) some important personal or public interest will be protected by the defendant's ordinarily prohibited conduct, and this interest justifies the harm caused or threatened by the defendant's conduct. 3)The defendant must act freely in order to perform an essential function.

Front 38

Who hss the burden of proof to prove the existence of a privilege and that the privilege was exercised reasonably under the circumstances.

Back 38

the defendant has the burden of proof

Front 39

Mistake may be a defense where:

Back 39

1) a defendant is under a duty to act for the protection of a public interest. 2) A person acts in self-defense or in the defense of others.

Front 40

Define Consent.

Back 40

Agreement, approval, or permission as to some act or purpose, esp. given voluntarily by a competent person; legally effective assent.

Front 41

In the case of intentional torts to the person is the lack of consent generally viewed as an affirmative defense?

Back 41

No. In the case of interntional torts to the person, lack of consent is generally viewed as part of the plaintiff's prima facie case, rather than as an affirmative defense.

Front 42

Self-defense is priviledged when...?

Back 42

The use of force to protect oneself, one's family, or one's property from a real or threatened attack. • Generally, a person is justified in using a reasonable amount of force in self-defense if he or she believes that the danger of bodily harm is imminent and that force is necessary to avoid this danger

Front 43

What is the defense of others?

Back 43

defense of others. A justification defense available if one harms or threatens another when defending a third person.

Front 44

What is Defense of Property?

Back 44

A justification defense available if one harms or threatens another when defending one's property.

Front 45

What is the Recapture of Chattels?

Back 45

An actor may use reasonable force against another to regain personal property where the other person: 1) tortiously took the chattel without claim of right. 2) took the chattel under the claim of right but by force or other duress or fraud or 3) has received custody of the chattel from the actor and refuses to surrender it is about to remove it from the actor's premises.