Battery & Assault
These are the two types of contact sufficient to establish a battery.
What is: Harmful Contact & Offensive Contact
How is liability for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress established?
A person is liable to another for IIED if they intentionally (or recklessly) engage in conduct that is "extreme and outrageous" that results in severe emotional distress.
True or False: Transfer of Intent does not apply to false imprisonment claims.
False. Transfer of Intent totally applies to false imprisonment!
How does a trespass occur?
Trespass occurs when an individual intentionally enters onto land possessed by another, "or causes a thing or a third person to do so; or "remains on the land" after having been asked to leave; or "fails to remove from the land a thing which he is under a duty to remove." (R2T 158).
How does one establish liability for trespass to chattel?
A trespass to chattel has been committed if one intentionally dispossesses another from an item in their possession or uses or intermeddles with a person's property which results in damage.
What is consent and how may it be given?
Consent considers what a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have understood based on the plaintiff's words or action.
Consent may be given through words, conduct, silence, or inaction. It may also be inferred based on the past interaction between two parties or custom.
This is the main ingredient necessary to establish assault.
What is: imminent apprehension of harm
When a person engages in a protest that doesn't target a specific individual, this constitutional amendment protects them from liability under IIED.
Additionally, what element of IIED isn't satisfied in this scenario?
What is: The First Amendment.
What is: The intent requirement. There must be an intention to cause severe emotional distress to the particular individual.
These are the four (4) elements of false imprisonment.
What are: (1) Intention; (2) Consciousness of confinement; (3) No consent to confinement; (4) Confinement not otherwise privileged.
What is the "eensy-teensy particle" rule?
When an invisible and undetectable particle falls onto someone's land, harm must be shown for a trespass claim to be viable.
Accumulation of particles that create a visible film coating a yard or field, however, would be enough to constitute "harm."
What must be shown for a conversion of trespass claim to succeed
For a conversion of chattel claim to succeed, it must be shown that the tortfeasor significantly interfered with or took control of someone's property to such an extent that the other party is entitled to recover the chattel's full value.
What are the 4 elements/questions to consider when determining whether or not there was consent?
1. Capacity - Did the plaintiff have the capacity to consent?
2. Expression - How was the consent expressed?
3. Scope - What is the scope of the consent, under what circumstances is that scope exceeded?
4. Emergency - Does the situation warrant consent to be implied if a reasonable person would act in such a way in that situation?
Liability for a battery is established when . . .
What is: When a person intends to make a harmful/offensive contact or the imminent apprehension of such with another and a harmful/offensive contact either directly or indirectly occurs.
What makes conduct "extreme and outrageous?"
Conduct is extreme and outrageous if it is conduct not tolerated by society, and would cause an ordinary person serious emotional and mental distress. Preying upon an individual's specific sensitivity could also be considered "extreme and outrageous."
How is liability for false imprisonment established?
Liability for false imprisonment occurs when one intentionally acts to confine and does in fact confine an individual within a fixed boundary either directly or indirectly, and the individual was aware of or harmed by the confinement.
Can Jennifer bring a successful trespass claim against James?
Yes, to succeed on a trespass claim, one must intentionally have entered onto land possessed by another. Here, James intentionally walked his dog over to land that happened to be Jennifer's property, that's all that is needed. It does not matter that he thought the land was his. Mistake is not a defense to trespass.
What factors are considered in determining whether there is a conversion of chattel?
The extent and duration of the exercise of dominion/control.
Extent and duration of Interfence
Intent to assert a right inconsistent with the proper owner's right of control.
Good/Bad Faith.
Degree of harm done to the chattel.
The level of inconvenience and expense caused to the other.
Robin had a cyst on the outside of her left kidney that she wanted to have removed. The doctor informed her that he could remove the cyst without removing the kidney. She consented to that surgery. During the operation, the doctor discovered that the cyst was not just on the surface but extended into the kidney as well. The doctor determined that he had to remove a portion of the kidney in order to fully remove the cyst, which is what he did.
Upon discovering that the doctor removed a portion of her kidney, Robin sued the doctor for battery. Will her claim be successful? Does the Doctor have a defense? If so, what?
Robin has a prima facie battery case against the Doctor. His cutting into her and removing the kidney constitutes a voluntary act which he intended to make which resulted into harmful contact.
The doctor will claim that Robin consented to the surgery. However, the general rule is that if a patient consents to a surgery, the physician may only operate to the extent that consent was provided. Robin only consented to have the cyst removed, not the kidney. Since there was no consent to remove the kidney, she will likely prevail.
However, if the doctor can demonstrate that Robin's life was threatened by the cyst so much so that it constituted an emergency situation, then consent may be assumed, and he would be justified in removing the kidney. In this case, Robin will not prevail on her claim.
Glen was out for a stroll in Strawberry mansion when he walked by a house when he chanced upon a group of individuals engaged in some nefarious business. Glen stopped and stared. One of the individuals took a switchblade out of his pocket and yelled, "I'm gonna come over and stab you if you don't keep walking." Glen honestly believed that he was going to be stabbed. Does he have a viable assault claim?
Bonus: What case is this hypothetical reminiscent of?
No, the individual only yelled, and words alone are not enough to constitute assault. Words must be coupled with an action to create an apprehension of harmful/offensive contact. Here, there was no additional action made other than taking the switchblade out of his pocket--but this would not be enough to create reasonable apprehension.
Case: Cucinotti v. Ortmann
Ross has a terrible and secret case of Ophidiophobia (irrational fear of snakes). While on a camping trip with Joey and Chandler, the trio spotted a snake slithering across the trail a few feet ahead of them. Ross screamed and ran in the opposite direction. Joey and Chandler merely shrugged it off and kept on walking. Later that evening, after they set up camp, Ross told Joey and Chandler all about his fear. Chandler, always looking for a new practical joke to play on Ross, decided to use his newfound knowledge to his advantage. While Ross was sleeping, Chandler placed a small garden snake into Ross's tent. Ross, after waking up to the snake slithering across his sleeping bag, freaked out and ended up collapsing the tent in his effort to escape. To Rachel's dismay, Ross now refuses to go outside as a result of the incident.
If Ross sues Chandler for IIED, what is the most likely result?
A. Ross will not prevail because an ordinary person would not suffer severe emotional distress in the aftermath of the situation.
B. Ross will not prevail because Chandler's action was a practical joke, and he did not intend to cause severe emotional distress.
C. Ross will prevail as long as the emotional distress he suffered as a result of the prank lasted long enough to be "severe."
D. Ross will prevail because the only criteria for IIED is that the conduct be considered extreme and outrageous.
C. Ross will prevail as long as the emotional distress he suffered as a result of the prank lasted long enough to be severe.
George had too much to drink at Jerry's party on Friday night, so much so that he passed out. As a practical joke, Kramer dragged George's body into the bathroom, put him into the bathtub, and then locked the door (for some reason there was a lock on the outside). An hour later, while George was still unconscious, Jerry walked in to use the bathroom. He left the door unlocked upon leaving. George finally woke up and walked out of the bathroom without a scratch. He soon found out from Newman that Kramer had dragged him into the bathroom and locked the door. He sued Kramer for False Imprisonment. Will he succeed?
No, George will not succeed. Because George was unconscious and unaware that Kramer confined him in the bathroom, the only way Kramer could be found liable for False Imprisonment would be if George was harmed, which he was not. Thus, no liability.
Johnny got a drone for his birthday. His parents asked the neighbors if Johnny could fly his drone around the neighborhood, which involved it being flown over their property. They agreed. Later that day, Johnny was flying his drone when it hit a tree and fell into his neighbor Oscar's yard. Oscar told Johnny that he had until 4:00 PM that day to come and pick up the drone. Johnny forgot. The next day he then went into Oscar's backyard and got the drone. Does Oscar have a viable trespass claim?
Yes, had Johnny picked up the drone within the window in which he had permission (until 4:00) then there would have been no trespass claim. but after 4:00 that permission expired. Therefore, Oscar can sue Johnny for trespass for both failing to remove the drone from the property because it was intentionally flown over the property, landed on the property, and left there. He can also sue Johnny for coming onto his property without permission.
Sarah and Michelle were sitting in the library and studying. Michelle mistakenly took Sarah's Civil Procedure textbook and put it in her backpack. Michelle then put her coffee travel mug in her backpack, which unfortunately wasn't closed properly. Once they got into Civil Procedure class, Michelle opened up her backpack and discovered that the coffee had spilled all over the textbook, ruining the pages (although it was still usable). Michelle then realized that Sarah's name was on the front cover and handed the book back to Sarah in class who didn't actually realize that Michelle had taken her book. Does Sarah have a trespass or conversion of chattel claim against Michelle?
Sarah likely has a trespass to chattel claim, but it would be more difficult to prove conversion. Here, Michelle's intermingling with the textbook caused the book to diminish in quality and value due to the coffee spillage. It doesn't matter that Michelle took the book by mistake.
Regarding Conversion, it's important to note that Michelle took the book in Good Faith (she thought it was hers), the book was still usable, and she returned the book upon realizing her mistake. It's likely a conversion claim would fail.
Marcus was standing in line at the local recreation center with many others, waiting to get a flu vaccination. Tolbert, a friend of Marcus, arrived at the center to play basketball. Tolbert saw Marcus and strolled over to say hello. As Marcus and Tolbert talked, they gradually approached the front of the line. Pimmy, a registered nurse who was administering the injections as fast as possible because of the number of people seeking the vaccinations, did not bother to look at Marcus's consent form or ask permission, but instead said, "Hold out your arm." Marcus held out his arm, but Tolbert did not. Nevertheless, Pimmy injected Tolbert, thinking he was also in line. Tolbert was allergic to the vaccination and suffered severe injury as a result. If Tolbert sues Pimmy for battery, who will prevail?
A. Tolbert will prevail because the contact was in fact harmful.
B. Tolbert will prevail because he did not consent to the contact.
C. Pimmy will prevail because Tolbert impliedly consented by standing in line.
D. Pimmy will prevail because he asked for consent.
B. Tolbert will prevail because he did not consent to the contact.
Andrew, excited to study for his torts exam is entering the library. Glen, jealous of Andrew's extravagant Allbirds shoe collection, decided to launch a spitball at Andrew. The slobbery projectile zoomed in front of Andrew, causing him to flinch violently, but due to Glen's terrible aim, the spitball struck Alec in the face, who was ignorant of the oncoming projectile.
Based on the above facts, which of the following is the most likely result.
A. Andrew will prevail on a battery claim because Glen intended to hit him with the spitball.
B. Alec will not prevail on a battery claim because he was not physically harmed by the spitball.
C. Andrew will prevail on an assault claim because he feared the spitball was going to hit him.
D. Alec will prevail on a battery claim as long as a reasonable person would find a spitball hitting them in the face to be offensive and disgusting.
D. Alec will prevail on a battery claim as long as a reasonable person would find a spitball hitting them in the face to be offensive and disgusting.
These two components (or lack thereof) of IIED, distinguish it from the other intentional torts.
What are:
1. Reckless action satisfying the intent requirement.
2. The lack of transferred intent available for IIED.
Josh and Nishtha were studying for their torts exam in Klein hall. Nishtha having finished reviewing the material, decided to leave early. Little did Nistha know, the doors locked automatically. Nishtha, upon leaving, closed the door behind her. Thirty minutes later, Josh realized he was locked in. Josh found himself trapped for an additional hour. Josh suffered no harm.
Josh brings a false imprisonment claim against Nishtha, which of the following is the most likely result.
A. Josh will prevail because Nishtha intentionally closed the door to the room.
B. Josh will not prevail because he didn't suffer harm.
C. Josh will not prevail because Nishtha didn't intend to confine him in the room.
D. Josh will prevail because Nishtha made him miss second breakfast.
C. Josh will prevail because while Nishtha didn't intend to confine him in the room.
Bingo was driving his car during a torrential rainstorm. As he drove past a low spot on the highway, a stream of rainwater swept across the road, causing Bingo to lose control of his car. Bingo's car swerved off the road and onto land belonging to Duke. Bingo got out of his car as water began to rise up above the level of the wheels. Bingo could have walked back onto the road but he chose instead to climb up to higher ground on Duke's land, to a spot where some trees provided some shelter from the rain. Duke later discovered Bingo and his car, and ordered Bingo to get himself and his car off Duke's property. Bingo tried, but his car would not start because of water damage. If Duke sues Bingo for trespass based on the initial entry of Bingo's car onto Duke's property, who will prevail?
A. Duke will prevail because trespass to land is a strict liability tort, and Bingo's car in fact ended up on his property.
B. Duke will prevail because Bingo's entry violated duke's right to exclusive possession.
C. Bingo will prevail because he did not intend for his car to end up where it did.
D. Bingo will prevail because his trespass caused no harm to Duke or his land.
C. Bingo will prevail because he did not intend for his car to end up where it did.
Can conversion apply to intangible property? And if so, when?
Where there is no dispossession of physical documents, there is no conversion, unless the documents fall under one of three categories.
1. Information gathered and arranged at some cost and sold as a commodity on the market.
2. Ideas formulated with labor/inventive genius (literary works/scientific research)
3. Secret plans formulated for the conduct of commerce.
At the recreational league softball tournament, the New York Mets were losing by two runs in the last inning but had two runners on base. When Andrew, the cleanup hitter for the Mets, hit a single to left field, Alec decided to knock down the Philadelphia Phillies' catcher so that the other runner could score as well, thus tying the score. Alec ran into the catcher, whose name was Glen, grabbing him around the waist and slamming him into the backstop, breaking his arm. To Alec's surprise, the other runner was not allowed to score and Alec was ejected from the game and banned from the league for a year. Glen sues Alec for battery. Who will prevail?
A. Alec will prevail because professional baseball players take out the catcher all the time.
B. Alec will prevail because Glen consented to this type of contact by agreeing to play in the softball league.
C. Glen will prevail because he did not consent to receive such a severe injury.
D. Glen will prevail because this type of contact is far outside the scope of any consent he may have given.
D. Glen will prevail because this type of contact is far outside the scope of any consent he may have given.