Bruised and Battered
In this 1967 case, a rough and racist restaurant manager learned the hard way that even when you don't touch a plaintiff's body, you can be liable for battery if you make contact with something closely associated with their person.
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc., 424 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. 1967)
This tort occurs when the tortfeasor enters land in the possession of the other, or causes a thing or a third person to do so, or remains on the land, or fails to remove from the land a thing which he is under a duty to remove, regardless of a mistake of ownership or damage done to the property.
Trespass (Restatement of Torts § 158)
This policy rationale is applied when the court renders a holding to prevent future instances of a tortious activity.
Deterrence
This 2001 case, featured in the hit movie "Boys Don't Cry", saw a deplorable group of law enforcement employees brought to justice for their verbal abuses and abhorrent rape investigation.
Brandon v. County of Richardson, 261 Neb. 636 (2001)
This 1992 case ruled that when an attacker's violent history, physical advantages, recent incidents of aggression against the shooter, and threatening demeanor despite warning shots create the apprehension of great bodily injury, the plaintiff was within their rights to use reasonable force when the killed the defendant in self-defense.
Bradley v. Hunter, 413 So. 2d 674 (1982)
Hall v. McBryde, 919 P.2d 910 (Colo. App. 1996)
This tort occurs when the tortfeasor dispossesses another of the chattel, or uses or intermeddles with a chattel in the possession of another.
Trespass to Chattels [Dispossession] (Restatement of Torts §§ 217-18)
This policy rationale is applied when the court renders a holding to ensure that a plaintiff receives justice in a financial form.
Compensation.
This 1970 case gave restitution to a mistreated employee after his racist boss degraded him and fired him for simply doing his job.
Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc., 2 Cal. 3d 493 (1970)
This 2001 case held that a loss prevention officer falsely imprisoned a customer because he had no reasonable suspicion to make the detention and acted in a manner beyond the scope of a reasonable investigation.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cockrell, 61 S.W.3d 774 (2001)
In this 1993 case, the defendant felt the court's wrath when his lighthearted joke of shooting compressed air at his coworkers genitals in a bid to get his attention was deemed offensive contact in a battery lawsuit.
Villa v. Derouen, 614 So. 2d 714 (La. Ct. App. 1993)
This tort is an intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel.
Conversion [Forced Sale] (Restatement of Torts § 222A)
This policy rationale is applied when the court renders a holding to ensure that a defendant is not forced to suffer financial harm from frivolous litigation.
Anti-Compensation.
In this 1998 case, the court held that instances of racism that victimize a token black child are perfectly acceptable when you're doing so pedagogically.
Graham v. Guilderland Central School District, 256 A.D.2d 863 (1998)
This 1910 nautical nightmare led the court to hold that even in the presence of force majeure (act of god event), the defendant's necessity to hitch themselves to the plaintiff's dock did not vitiate their liability for the damage they caused as a result.
Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co., 109 Minn. 456, 124 N.W. 221 (1910)
In this 2000 case, the court held that the Alzheimer's afflicted defendant could only vitiate their intent to commit the battery against their care taker if their mental condition inhibits them forming said intent. (Spoiler Alert: She could not)
White v. Muniz, 999 P.2d 814 (Colo. Apr. 17, 2000)
This 1962 case held that a small child was NOT a trespasser for entering the defendant's property when it was her only reasonable means of escape from a potential attack by a violent dog.
Rossi v. DelDuca, 181 N.E.2d 591 (1962)
This policy rationale is applied when the court renders a holding to allow society to proceed with normally without the fear of looming litigation.
Avoidance of Undue Burden on Social Activities.
The 1993 case in North Dakota held that a boss is liable for IIED for being a horrendous sexist to his female employee and denying her a due promotion, spiraling her into an alcoholic depression.
Swenson v. Northern Crop Insurance, Inc., 498 N.W.2d 147 (N.D. 1993)
This 1966 case held that when a plaintiff consents to rough and tumble play and invites the contact, their consent to the activity vitiates their prima facie case for battery despite the plaintiff becoming paralyzed as a result.
Hellriegel v. Tholl, 417 P.2d 362 (Wash. 1966)
These two cases center around a plaintiff's efforts to combat smoking. One was not ruled a battery because the defendant's smoking was ruled as appropriate for the social usages within a crowded society in spite of the plaintiff's "allergies".The other was ruled a battery for the defendant's particulate attack against the plaintiff. (Name either one, 2x points for both)
Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications, Inc., 92 Ohio App. 3d 232 (1994)
OR
McCracken v. Sloan, 40 N.C. App. 214 (1979)
This 1997 case held that when a defendant's pestilent emails inhibit the plaintiff's use of their proprietary technology despite numerous cease and desist communications, the defendant is liable for trespass to chattels for their intermeddling with the plaintiff's property regardless of their assertion of First Amendment rights. (Bonus Points for the other case that deals with Trespassing on a company's Technology)
CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 962 F.Supp. 1015 (1997)
&
Intel Corporation v. Hamidi, 71 P.3d 296 (2003)
This policy rationale is applied when the court renders a holding to ensure that the court is not inundated with undue lawsuits for actions that do not qualify as torts.
Efficient and Effective Legal Processes.
These four factors are how our beloved justice system determines whether a defendant's conduct is outrageous in cases of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Defense.
1. Plaintiff's Vulnerability
2. Abuse of Power
3. Repeated Instances
4. Threats of Violence
This 1891 case ruled that when a plaintiff holds up their arm to receive a vaccine that they waited in line to get in order to receive a benefit, their outward conduct manifested the implied consent that would vitiate a prima facie case for battery.
O'Brien v. Cunard S.S. Co., 154 Mass. 272, 28 N.E. 266 (1891)