|
|
|||||
|
|
|
INTENTIONALLY INFLICTED HARMBATTERY“Battery is the intentional infliction of a harmful or offensive bodily contact.”
- Was the contact un-consented and unprivileged? - Did the defendant intend to commit the act? o NOT intention to do harm, intention to do act is sufficient (Vosburg v. Putney – kicking in class). o What is the “act”? § A desire to cause contact § A desire to frighten (cause assault) § A desire to do anything substantially certain to cause a harmful or offensive conduct (this is subjective). § In cases of highly egregious social conduct (purpose was for “insult” and malice) P might sue for punitive damages (Alcorn v. Mitchell) - Is the defendant liable for the exacerbation of a pre-existing condition? Yes. o Eggshell theory – when a party does harm to another that has a pre-existing condition, and that harm exacerbates this pre-existing condition, the party is still responsible for the full extent of the injuries. - Is the defendant liable for unforeseen consequences? Yes. o Issue of Foreseeability: “The rule of damages in actions for torts was held…to be that the wrong-doer is liable for all injuries resulting directly from the wrongful act, whether they could or could not have been foreseen by him.” (Vosburg v. Putney). The defendant is liable for unforeseeable harms. - If D intends to make contact w/ X but strikes Y then is he still liable? Yes. o Transferred intent. - What if the defendant is insane? Irrelevant. Basically, the insane and the sane are held to same standard of intent. o An insane person has the requisite intent to commit battery (an intentional tort). (McGuire v. Almy – mentally unstable woman assaults nurse). § “For this case it is enough to say that where an insane person by his act does intentional damage to the person or property of another he is liable for that damage in the same circumstances in which a normal person would be liable.” o Black-letter: Where there are two innocents, the one who commits the act is liable. - In this situation: o Intent to do act v. intent to do harm, Eggshell theory, issue of foreseeability, transferred intent and “two innocents”.
TURN TO DEFENSES
FALSE IMPRISONMENTFalse imprisonment is the intentional infliction of confinement. - When is a plaintiff confined? o The plaintiff is ‘confined’ when his will to leave a place within certain limits is overcome in a way that would overcome the will of an ordinary person in the plaintiff’s position. - How is this different than battery? Requires intent to confine, not just intent to do act. o Battery: intent to do act, not intent to create resultant harm. FI: intent to create result, confinement. o FI: cannot be committed merely by negligence or recklessness. - What are the methods of confinement? o Force o Threat o Duress o Arrest (force is not necessary with regards to arrest) - Were there reasonable grounds for retention, as determined by an objective test (Coblyn v. Kennedy – elderly man suffers heart trouble after sales associate thinks he stole and ascot). o reasonable manner o reasonable length of time o person authorized to make arrests o reasonable grounds for detaining the plaintiff § Shopkeeper’s privilege: “Most courts let a merchant who reasonably suspects P of shoplifting to detain P for the time reasonably needed to conduct an investigation, and there is no FI even if it turns out that P is innocent.” - In this situation: o Intent to confine, confinement?, was P aware of confinement? Methods of confinement, reasonable grounds for retention, Shopkeeper’s privilege.
TURN TO DEFENSES
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS“The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress occurs whenever the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes, through the use of extreme and outrageous conduct, severe emotional or mental distress.” (R2d §46)
- The intent to do an act is not sufficient. The D must have: o intended to bring about the distress o knew with substantial certainty that the distress would result, even if D didn’t desire it o D recklessly disregarded the possibility that distress would result. - Usually a matter of fact to be determined by expert (most likely medical) testimony. o (Rockhill v. Pollard – doctor doesn’t treat car accident victims when they come to his office following accident).
TURN TO DEFENSES
TRESPASS TO LAND“Trespass to land is the intentional unauthorized entry onto the land of another.”
TRESPASS TO CHATTELS“Trespass to chattels is the intentional interference with another person’s interest in a chattel, resulting in damage to that interest.”
TURN TO DEFENSES
DEFENSES TO INTENTIONAL TORTS
CONSENT – generally if the P has consented to an intentional interference w/ his person or property, D is not liable for that interference:- Consent may be explicit or implied o Implied – when a reasonable person in the D’s place thought there was consent. - Volenti non fit injuria: o A volunteer to dangerous activity gives implied consent by engaging in the activity. (public policy may override this – Hudson v. Kraft: promoter of illegal boxing matches held liable for injuries to P despite P’s consent to box). - When good intentions are not an excuse: o In a medical setting: despite good intentions, doctors can be liable for torts to persons when no consent exists (Mohr v. Williams – doctor operated on ear w/o consent). § In these cases, D does not have to have unlawful intent. - When is there not a duty to Disclose? o There is no duty to disclose or need for consent when the patient is unable to consent (emergency situation) & doctor believes that she must immediately respond to an imminent threat. o When disclosure would make patient so ill or emotionally distraught as to foreclose rational thinking on patient’s part.
- Self-defense dissolves liability where it is reasonable (objective standard). o In determining reasonability look at: § The facts of the particular case § Testimony by witness and the parties involved. · The self defense must also be proportionate to the threat presented, cannot hurt the attacker in order to punish him, only to protect oneself.
- Defense of Property – a person can defend property with the amount of force necessary to do so. BUT: o It is unlawful to intentionally hurt someone unless there is a definite need; § protection cannot result in great physical harm to trespasser, unless he also presents threat to person as well, i.e. human rights are more valuable than property rights. § In addition, the owner must provide a warning notice. · Bird v. Holbrook - Defendant owned a garden of expensive tulips and in the past had been robbed. As a method of protecting his property, the owner set up spring guns to “catch” robbers. Black-letter: The method of self-defense or protection of property must be calibrated to the threat. The D must provide warning where there is a deadly trap (distinguishes barb wire from spring gun). ·Katko v. Briney - The owners of house used for storage had been robbed and as a protective measure set up a spring gun. There is a calibrated right to self-defense, meaning that the protective measure must be appropriate for imminent threat. There is no way to know what threat there is when the trap is automatic. - Recovery of Chattels o Forcible recapture of chattels is not allowed when it is not appropriate to the situation, which will be decided on the facts of the case § Kirby v. Foster- Kirby was held responsible by his employer for missing money. This money was deducted from Kirby’s paycheck. On the advice of counsel, Kirby tried to take this money back when his employer, Foster, gave Kirby money to pay the labor. Foster attempted to physically take the money back and a battery ensues. o Must use a reasonable amount of force and be done in “fresh pursuit” otherwise must use the court system to reclaim the chattel.; i.e. life valued more than property
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
