Sei sulla pagina 1di 4

USE THIS STRUCTURE FOR EVERY INTENTIONAL TORTS ESSAY

(1) If one acts _, a colorable claim for ___ exists.


(2) A plaintiff can recover for/under __ if __
(3) In establishing ___, a court considers [the following factors:] / [whether __]

ESSAY TOPIC: INTENTIONAL TORTS

BATTERY:
What is the intended consequence of battery? Harmful/offensive contact
RULE: In order to make a Prima Facie case for Battery, the P must show that D
INTENTIONALLY caused a HARMFUL/OFFENSIVE CONTACT with the person of P
3 ELEMENTS OF BATTERY:
1.Intent
2.Harmful/Offensive contact
3.With plaintiff’s person
P’s person includes anything so connected to the body – has to be customarily
regarded as part of the other’s person.
OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING INTENT OF BATTERY:
1.if the def’s contact was unlawful
2.if the def’s contact has consent to the contact.

ASSAULT:
RULE: In order to make a Prima Facie Case for assault, P must show that D
intentionally caused an IMMINENT APPREHENSION of a HARMFUL/OFFENSIVE
CONTACT with the person of another.
ELEMENTS:
1.Intent
a.D has intent for BATTERY or
b.D intends to make P think a BATTERY IS IMMINENT.
2.Imminent
a.D’s future plan and hypothetical threats are NOT imminent.
3.Apprehension
a.P’s apprehension must be reasonable OR D must know of P’s hypersensitivity.
4.Harmful/offensive contact
a.It is harmful/offensive if a reasonable person would think so.
5.Person of another
INTENDED CONSEQUENCE:
1. To cause harmful/offensive contact
2. Apprehension of harmful/offensive contact

FALSE IMPRISONMENT:
False Imprisonment- conduct by actor which is intended to, and does in fact, confine
another within boundaries fixed by the actor were, in addition, the victim is either
conscious of confinement or is harmed by it
1.Actual physical force is not required; implicit (false assertion of lawful authority to
confine) or explicit threats of physical force are enough
2.McCann v. Wal-Mart- P and children told they can’t leave store b/c employees thought
children were ones who had been shoplifting week before; false imprisonment
3.Exception- shopkeepers privilege- with reasonable basis to believe that someone has
shoplifted from store, owner may stop them until reasonable investigation into incident
has occurred

IIED:
1.3 elements
i. extreme and outrageous conduct (has to be really over the top)
ii.intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress
iii.actual result to P of severe emotional harm
2.if first two elements are present, do not have to have objective symptomology to take
the case to a jury to determine if there was severe emotional harm
3.the more outrageous the conduct, the less you have to prove in harm or damages
4.Brower v. Ackerley- P’s case of intentional infliction of emotional distress can go to jury
b/c first two elements are undisputed
TRANSFERRED INTENT:
TORT TO TORT: If D has the intent required for one tort but causes a different one, the
intent automatically transfers to the second tort.
VICTIM TO VICTIM: If D has the intent required for a tort against 1 victim, but inflicts the
tort on another person, the intent automtcally xfers to the 2nd person.
**REMEMBER – TRANSFERRED INTENT applies to: BATTERY, ASSAULT, FALSE
IMPRISONMENT, TRESSPASS TO LAND.
BUT NOT TO: CONVERSION, IIED, SOMETIMES TTC.

TRESPASS TO LAND:
One is subject to liability to another for trespass if he intentionally:
1.Enters the land in the possession of another, 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 a thing which he is under a duty to remove (R.2d §158)
INTENT is satisfied if D voluntarily enters another’s land.
REMEMBER only the person in possession of the land can bring a lawful claim for
trespass.

TRESPASS TO CHATTELS AND CONVERSION:


Intention interference with P’s possession of personal property so significant that D
should pay the full value of the property.
SIMILARITIES: Intent to exercise dominion or control of plaintiff’s possession of
personal property.
DIFFERENCES:
1.DAMAGES: 

TTC: Get stuff back, damages, damage to property, rental value for time.

CONV: Get full value of the property + consequential damages.
2.INTERFERENCE:

TTC: Must be some interference more than a few minutes, plaintiff must suffer

CONV: There must be significant interference regardless of P’s harm.

CONSENT:
RULE: D is not liable for an intentional tort if P expressly or impliedly consented to the
conduct.
APPARENT CONSENT: Consent is effective if D reasonably believes that P consented
(R.2d §892)
PRIVILEGE OR EMERGENCY: Consent will be IMPLIED BY LAW when:
1.P is unconscious or otherwise incapable of providing consent,
2.There is an emergency that puts P at risk of injury or death if D waits to obtain actual
consent and
3.D reasonably believes P would consent if P were capable
CONSENT INDUCED BY MISTAKE OR DECEPTION:
Consent is NOT EFFECTIVE if P’s consent was induced by a “substantial mistake”
concerning the nature of the invasion of his interests of the extent of the harm to be
expected from it AND D knew of the mistake or induced it by misrepresentation. (R.2d
§892b)
CONSENT TO AN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY:
MAJORITY: Consent is not effective, can not be raised as a defense.
MINORITY: Consent is usually effective, can usually be raised as a defense unless
statute protects vulnerable class of persons and consenting person falls in that class of
persons.
DEFENSE OF PERSON AND PROPERTY:
THE DEFENSE PRIVILEGES: 2 KEYS TO PROPORTIONALITY
1.Did D use deadly or non-deadly force
a.Deadly force: force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.
2.Was D defending person or property
A person may use only as much force as reasonably required to protect herself
• what if you use too much force
oif a person uses more force than necessary (excessive means) or continues using
force after the threat is controlled (excessive duration) that person can be held liable
for the extent of harm caused by excessive force.
• What kind of threats warrant defensive acts?
oImminence:
▪ The privilege of self defense only applies to imminent threats.
oApparent danger:
▪ Whether the persons use of force is reasonable is determined objectively based on
the information the person has when defending.
▪ This is an exception to the general rule that mistake of fact is not a
defense
• How much force is reasonable to defend your PERSON
o Exhaust alternatives: Generally, a person cannot use force unless there is no
reasonable alternative, and the person cannot use more force than
necessary.
▪ Deadly force: deadly force is permitted only where
▫ 1. The person reasonably believes she is threatened with death,
serious bodily harm, or rape and
▫ 2. the person has no duty to retreat
▪ Duty to retreat?
▫ Non-deadly force: there is no duty to retreat before using non-deadly
force in defense
▫ Deadly force: if one can retreat safely rather than using deadly force,
one must retreat (but some exceptions)
• Home is exception.