.

An intententional tort requires an overt act. some form of intent, and causation. In most cases. transferred intent, which occurs when the defendant intends to injure an individual but actually ends up injuring another individual, will satisfy the intent requirement. Causation can be satisfied as long as the defendant was a substantial factor in causing the harm.

DEFENSES

TO INTENTIONAL

TORTS

RELATED

TO THE PERSON

Battery: A harmful or offensive touching of the plaintiff's person with intent and causation.
The touching can be indirect. The standard to determine whether a touching is offensive is a reasonable person with ordinary sensitivity. Assault: An overt act that puts the plaintiff in reasonable apprehension that an immediate battery will occur with intent and causation. Reasonable apprehension is based on the plaintiff's perception of the situation (e.g., it is considered assault if the defendant points an unloaded gun at the plaintiff. as long as the plaintiff believes the gun to be loaded). Words alone are not considered an overt act and they can negate the immediacy of the conduct (e.g., if the defendant points a gun at the plaintiff and says, "in three weeks, I will kill you, " this eliminates the immediacy required for the action to be considered an assault). False Imprisonment: An act of restraint that confines the plaintiff in a bounded area. The length of the imprisonment is immaterial. but the plaintiff either must be aware of or suffer harm from the imprisonment. Words alone can be considered an act of restraint if the plaintiff believes they are a threat. An act of restraint can also occur through omission if specific preexisting conditions apply (e.g., if a prison guard refuses to release a prisoner at the end of his or her sentence, the guard has committed an act of restraint). For an area to be considered bounded, the plaintiff must be confined in all directions and there cannot be a reaonable means of escape that the plaintiff can reasonably discover.

Protection: Includes self-defense, defense of others, and defense of property. They are only available if the defendant acts during the event, and exercises a reasonable degree of force under the circumstances. Deadly force is allowed in self-defense or defense of others only out of necessity. Deadly force is not permitted for defense of property, but threats of deadly force are allowed. Self-defense: The defendant must reasonably believe he or she is in danger. Mistakes are allowed as long as the defendant's beliefs were reasonable. Defense of others: TO support a claim of defense of others, the individual the defendant was protecting must actually have been in danger. Mistakes are not allowed even if the defendant's beliefs were reasonable.

Defense of property: Defense of property claims require a reasonable belief of injury.As discussed above, deadly force, including traps set on property, is never permissible for

defenseof property.
Consent: This is generally a complete defenseto an intentional tort as longas it is an effective consent. Tobe effective, the consent must not havebeencoercedorgained underfalseor
mistaken pretenses, and the individual giving consent must have the capacity to do so. In many jurisdictions, there are certain actions to which no individual can give legal consent (e.g., injury from mutual combat). Minors, mentally incompetent individuals, and intoxicated individuals generally do not have the capacity to consent, but a legalauthorityfor an incapacitated individual (e.g., parent or guardian) can have a limited power to consent. Necessity: of necessity. Occurs when the defendant invades the plantiff's property in an emergency

situation. This is only a defense for intentional torts related to property. There are two types Public necessity: Occurs when the invasionis designed to protect the community.ThepUblic necessity defense is a complete bar to recovery. Private necessity: Occurs when the invasion is to preserve the defendant's own interest.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: For this claim to be supported, the plaintiff must prove that he or she suffered damages due to extreme distress. The defendant must have engaged in outrageous conduct (conduct that exceeds all bounds of decency) with intent or recklessness and causation. Generally, courts are more likely to find that outrageous conduct has occurred if the plaintiffis a member of a fragile class of persons (e.g., very old or very young), there is continuous conduct, the conduct occurs in public,or the defendant is an innkeeper or common carrier.

The private necessity defense is limited. The defendant does not have to pay nominal or punitive damages, but is responsible for any property damage caused by his or her actions. In a private necessity, the plaintiff cannot force the defendant to exit the land until the
emergency is over. Arrest: There are different rules for police officers and private citizens regarding the right to arrest. When the right to arrest exists, the individual making the arrest has the right to enter the arrestee's land. Police officers: Police officers with warrants have the right to arrest when they use reasonable force and follow the correct procedure. When there is no warrant, the right to arrestvaries based on the type of crime. For felonies, the police officer must havereasonable grounds to suspectthat the individualhas committed a felony.Forabreachof the peace, the incident of the policeofficer.Forallother misdemeanors, jurismust haveoccurred in the presence dictions disagree-some treat them like a breach of the peace andsomeprohibit arrests. Private citizens: When a felony is involved, the right to arrest exists only if the felony has been committed and the private citizenhas reasonable grounds to suspectthat the individual committed the felony.Theprivate citizen mustbearthe riskthat an actual felonyoccurred because if he or she is mistaken. no right to arrest exists. When a breach of the peace is involved, the right to arrest only exists if the incident occurs in the presence of the private citizen. The private citizen has no right to arrest for any other misdemeanor. Discipline: Parents, guardians, and teachers have the right to discipline children using reasonable force, which includes corporal punishment. Military officers also have the rightto discipline their subordinates as long as reasonable force is used. .

RELATED

TO PROPERTY

Trespass to land: Occurs when the defendant physically invades the plaintiff's land with intent and causation. Any physical entry on the land, no matter how small, meets the standard. An intangible invasion (e.g., smell) is not considered a trespass (although, intangible invasion may be recoverable under nuisance law). The invasion can occur on the surface or a reasonable distance above or below the surface of the land. The defendant does not need to be aware that he or she crossed onto plaintiff's land; he or she must onlyhave the intention to be on the challenged location. Unintentional entry (e.g., sleepwalking) does not count. Trespass to chattel: Occurs when the defendant interferes with the plaintiff's right of possession of chattel. The plaintiff must prove actual damage to the chattel. Chattel: A personal article of property. Unlike real property, it is moveable. Chattel can be animate (e.g.. the family pet) or inanimate.

Conversion: Occurs when the defendant's interference with the plaintiff's chattel is so egregious that the chattel is practically destroyed or it is never returned to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not required to prove damages. In a successful claim, either the plaintiff can recover compensatory damages based on the fair market value of the chattel or the court can order replevin (return of the chattel to the plaintiff).

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (VICARIOUS LIABILITY)

Respondeat superior, which literally means -let the master answer: is a doctrine that holds one party liable for another's actions based on their relationship. While commonly applied to hold employers responsible for certain types of their employees' actions, this doctrine can also be relevant in principal/agent relationships. Simple negligence claims le.g., negligent hiring, negligent entrustment of an automobile I may also apply in these relationships.
Employee/employer relationships: An employer is vicariouslyliablefor the acts of an employee as long as the employee's acts are in the scope of employment. Thus, when an employee acts to further the employer's business, the employer will be vicariously liable (even for intentional torts). However, if the employee commits an intentional tort for purely personal reasons unrelated to the employment, most jurisdictions will not hold an employer vicariously liable. Independent contractor/emptoyer relationships: Generally, employers are not vicariously liable for acts committed by independent contractors. However, when inherently dangerous activities or non-delegable duties (e.g., duty of railroad to maintain safe crossings, duty of storekeeper to make the premises reasonably safe for customers) are involved,an employer can be held vicariously liable. Automobile driver/owner retationships: In many jurisdictions, the owner is only vicariously liable if the driver is on an errand for the owner. However, in some jurisdictions, an owner is vicariously liable for drivers that are members of the owner's household as long as the car is intended for family use. In other jurisdictions, as long as the driver has the owner's permission 10operate the vehicle, the owner is vicariously liable.

Nondisclosure: Generally,there is no liabilityfor not speaking or not disclosing facts. This is similar to the general rule regarding no liability fornonfeasance in negligence cases.There are
several exceptions to this rule.

Misrepresentation: A defendant can be liable for misrepresentation (misrepresenting facts

that cause injury to the plaintiff) based on a theory of negligence or intent. The plaintiff must prove causation, damages, and justifiable reliance on the misleading statements. In order for the reliance to be justified, the plaintiff must have relied on a material fact (e.g., the reliance should be reasonable). However, the defendant can be liable if he or she knew about the plaintiff's diminished intelligence, increased gullibility, or ignorance and chose to take advantageofit. Negligent misrepresentation: This must include breach of a duty of care in a business or professional relationship with causation, damages, and justifiable reliance. Foreseeability is a key requirement-harm must result and the plaintiff in question must suffer the harm. tntentional misrepresentation: Thisis alsocalledfraudor deceit. It occurs when the defendant has knowledge that statements will be misleading but makes them anyway (intent) and the plaintiff justifiably relies on those statements with causation and damages.

Confidential or fiduciary relationship exception: Ifthere is a confidential or fiduciary(e.g.,

estate executor and beneficiary) relationship between the parties, a defendant may be liable for nondisclosure. Certain contractual relationships (e.g., partnerships and insurance agreements) can be considered confidential relationships that require a full disclosure of the facts. Undertaking exception: Once the defendant has made certain statements, he or she may be liable if he or she does not disclose enough to prevent the statements from being misleading.This applies even ifthe defendant becomes aware of facts subsequent to the initial interaction (e.g., Jason is selling his software business to Lisa. Before the sale is completed, but two months after Jason tells Lisa about the business's profits, the software company's profits decline by 50 percent. If Jason does not tell Lisa about the decline, he could be liable for nondisclosure). Ordinary ethical person standard: Somecourts apply an ordinary ethical person standard to determine whether the defendant had a duty to disclose. There are many factors to determine whether this standard was reached (e.g., the nature and importance of the nondisclosed fact, the relationship and intelligence of the parties, and how the nondisclosed information was acquired).