INTENTIONAL TORTS REVIEW – MIDTERM

CHAPTER 1 AND 2
FOCUS ON IT + ELEMENTS + DEFENSES

- All torts deal with the: What?, Who?, intent, consent, and the actual
issue.
- Umbrella torts -> From there all the torts come from. It is
restatement of torts section 5
- Monster of all torts-> This tort covers is mainly international and has
not been used a lot in the US. Its mainly for international law,
genocide, deaths, etc.
- Nuisance tort-> This tort focuses on the idea that no one is allowed
to interfere with someone else’s property.
- Factors -> It is disjunctive.
- Elements -> All must be satisfied.
- Conjunctive-> All elements are required.
- Burden of Proof -> Plaintiff has burden of proof. Once the plaintiff
has provided all the elements to bring up a case, the burden shifts.
- Prima-Facia -> In the face. It appears to be.

7 Intentional torts:

1. Elements for Battery

- Battery focuses on contact and harm.
We require: A+B+C+D
A. (What?) Contact was caused (Direct or Indirect)
B. (Who?) Defendant caused the contact.
C. Contact was harmful or offensive.
D. (Intent) Defendant intended to cause contact

- Plaintiff did not consent.

- We have single intent and double intent. Depends on the
jurisdiction.
SINGLE- MANDATORY DOUBLE – MINORITY
Only requires one element, Requires two elements, which
which is contact. are contact and harm.
Without harm there is no
battery.

- You can have adjacent battery. Case -> Carrousel Hotel.

- Garret Case -> (The chair case) Courts argued that to have battery
you must have intent to harm or at least knowledge or
understanding of that they did. If there is no intent you have NO
BATTERY. The Defendant must know what they are doing.
 - Brzesky Case-> Courts argued that fear is not enough for this claim.
- Muniz Case-> men
- Talmage Case (Stick case) -> This case focuses on transfer intent.
Not because the defendant tried to hit someone else does not mean
he didn’t intent to hit someone, and that is battery.

2. Elements for Assault

- Assault focuses on the apprehension and fear
We require: A+B+C+D
A. Plaintiff suffered Apprehension of imminent danger.
B. Defendant caused the apprehension of imminent danger.
C. Apprehension of imminent danger was for severe danger of harm
or cause contact.
D. Defendant intended to apprehend and imminent
- Western union case-> the employee tries to touch the female
customer.

3. Elements for false imprisonment

- False Imprisonment focuses on the containment
We require: A+B+C+D
A. Plaintiff was contained by the Defendant’s boundaries.
B. Plaintiff was aware of confinement.
C. Defendant contained the plaintiff within its boundaries.
D. Defendant intended to contain that Plaintiff.
- If the plaintiff is not aware of the containment, the claimant does
not have a claim for False imprisonment.
- Shoplifter case -> Courts said that up to 30 min to hold someone
was reasonable.
- Plaintiff did not consent.

- Courts have allowed people to take their property back by

themselves if its immediate.

4. Elements for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

- Focuses on the severe and outrageous contact
We require: A+B+C+D
A. Plaintiff suffered from intentional infliction of emotional distress
(IIED)
B. Defendant caused the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
C. Defendant intended to cause intentional infliction of emotional
distress.
D. The intentional infliction of emotional distress was severe and
outrageous.
 - Quest case -> Incorrect lab report caused IIED to someone to a
new employer which caused that employee to not get the job.

5. Elements for trespass to land

We require: A+B+C+D
A. Defendant entered the land.
B. Plaintiff owns the land or possesses the property.
C. Defendant intended to enter the land
D. Defendant lacked consent or privilege.

- Even if the defendant does not enter, if the defendant throws an

object to the property that is also trespass.

- Board Commissionaire’s case-> The government left an object

after the contract was over in a constituent’s property and the
owner’s had an accident, but hitting the object, and the owner died.

6. Elements for Chattel

- Focuses on disruption, destruction or changing the chattel somehow
from its origin.
We require: A+B+C
A. Defendant disrupts, disposes, destroys, or intermeddles the
chattel.
B. Plaintiff owns or possesses the chattel (object)
C. Defendant intended to dispose, disruption, destruct, or
intermeddles.
D. The disruption is severe.

- Focuses on disruption and intermeddle of the chattel, which is the

object. For minor damages.
- If there is no harm to chattel, there is no claim. You obtain damages
for the object itself only.

7. Elements for Conversion

- Dominion or control
We require: A+B+C+D
A. Defendant exercised dominion of the chattel. (When the
Defendant takes the chattel)
B. Plaintiff owns or possesses the chattel.
C. Defendant intended to exercise dominion or control of the
chattel.
D. Defendant seriously interfered with the chattel and with
plainitff’s right to control.
 - Focuses on big damages. Once the damage is big the claimant
obtains damages for the chattel and other damages. Once the
damage is severe, the trespass changes from trespass to chattel to
Conversion.

Intentional Torts Defenses are:

1. Consent:
A. Implicit: In writing, out loud and when it is asked.
B. Explicit: Behavior

- If you have consent you can’t claim the tort.

- It all depends on the situation.
- No consent -> Battery claim
- Lack of consent is a malpractice claim.
(Doctors are required to say the stats and information, but they do
not have to know all the risks because that would be impossible)

2. Self-Defense
- Self-defense reaction must reflect the action received. It cannot be
more.
Ex: If someone slaps you, you slap back. But if you take out a guy
than that would not equate the same level.

Self- Defense No Death Self- Defense Death

3. Defense of others
- When you defend someone else the self-defense privilege transfers.
- It is tricky when you are defending someone that does not need
help or defending someone that is the actual predator (by accident):
In this case this is very tricky.

4. Fraud, Misrepresentation and duress: When someone is deceptive

to obtain consent. In this case, consent is invalidated due to the fraud
or misrepresentation used to obtain the consent.

5. Defense of Property: You can defend your property. A person is

allowed to use reasonable force to protect their property from being
taken or damaged. However, deadly force is generally not permitted to
protect property alone.

- Harotti case (wrongful death)-> Plaintiff sued defendant for

wrongful death. The plaintiff used unnecessary force (gun) to
defend its property.
 6. Necessity: Allows a person to commit what would otherwise be a tort
if it was reasonably necessary to prevent a greater harm. There
are two types of necessity: public necessity and private necessity.

Public Necessity Private Necessity

Involves actions taken to Involves actions taken to
protect the public at large protect an individual's own
(e.g., destroying interests, but the person may
property to stop a fire from still be required to
spreading). compensate for damages.

Ship case -> The plaintiff claimed damages because during the storm
the defendant left the boat tied to the dock causing damage.

7. Defense of legal authority (privilege): People who are from the

post office (mail man), cops, police, ambulance, 911 people,
emergency people etc. They all have privilege to come in and aid.

8. Shoplifter Privilege-> A shopkeeper or merchant may detain a

suspected shoplifter on store premises for a reasonable period (30
minutes) if they have probable cause to believe that theft has
occurred.

9. Recapture chattel-> A person may use reasonable force to reclaim

personal property wrongfully taken if the recapture is done
immediately after the property was taken. Definition: Certain
individuals, such as parents or teachers, may use reasonable force to
discipline children, provided it does not exceed what is considered
appropriate under the circumstances. Example: A parent spanking a
child as discipline may not be held liable for battery if the force used is
reasonable.

10. Justification -> Can be used as an affirmative defense for false

imprisonment.

- Intent and different torts: They all involve on how bad the intent must
be to support liability.
A. Intentional torts (Intent) – The plaintiff must prove that the
defendant intended to cause a consequence that is prohibited by
law.
B. Negligence torts (Intent) – The plaintiff must prove that the
defendant failed to act reasonably.
C. Strict liability torts (Intent) – The plaintiff must prove that the
injury occurred in the course of an activity for which strict liability
applies.
In analyzing battery cases, always distinguish the intent to act from the
intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact. Battery requires more
than a deliberate act. It requires a deliberate act done for the
purpose of causing a harmful or offensive contact, or which the
actor knows to a substantial certainty will cause such a contact. If
only a deliberate act were required, battery would encompass many cases
where the actor intended no harmful or offensive contact.

new tort of purposeful infliction of bodily harm

CHAPTER 3- NEGLIGENCE

- The learned hand formula

A precaution should be undertaken when B < P x L
B-> Burden P-> Probability L-> Injury
The carol case explains that the burden of taking a precaution is less than the total risk, than
you should do it since it prudent.
If the Burden is less than the defendant is negligent.

If your P x L is higher than your B (burden), than you have reasonable precautions. The
defendant is not negligent.