Intentional Torts
Elements of Trespass
1. Intent to enter on real property
2. tangible intrusion on someone else's property
Elements of Battery
1. Intent
2. Contact
3. Harmful or intentional
4. Unprivileged
Conversion
- P owns or has right to the personal property
- intent
- Intent to deprive P of their right to use personal property
- Damages that require ∆ to pay full value of chattel
Elements of False imprisonment
- Act intending to confine within boundaries
- act directly or indirectly results in confinement
- must be concious or harmed by confinement
- no reasonable means of escape
A student detests one of his classmates. Every day for a month, the student sprays a foul-smelling liquid on his classmate’s locker. He knows the classmate hates the smell. A school security camera shows him in the act. The classmate confronts the student about the spray, but the student says that he will keep doing it until the school forces him to stop. The classmate sues the student for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The classmate has not lost sleep, seen a mental health counselor, taken medication, or been otherwise affected by the student’s spraying her locker, but she's understandably furious with him. Can she prove the tortious conduct portion of the prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
A. No, because she did not have any objectively verifiable proof that she suffered severe emotional distress
B. No, because she did not suffer severe emotional distress
C. Yes, if the jury concludes the students actions were outrageous
D. Yes, so long as she is furious
B. No, because she did not suffer severe emotional distress
Elements of IIED
1. Outrageous or Extreme Conduct
2. Intentionally or recklessly
3. Causes Severe Emotional Distress
Elements of assault
Intent to create apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact
-must be able to carry it out
Trespass to Chattels
- P owns or has right to the personal property
- intent
- Intent to deprive P of their right to use personal property
- Damages
When a crowded city bus braked suddenly, the standing passengers were thrown together, and a woman wearing very high-heeled shoes began to stumble. A man who was unacquainted with her kept her from falling by grabbing her arm.
If the woman sues the man for battery, will she recover?
A. Yes, because the man intended to grab her arm.
B. Yes, because the man touched her without her permission.
C. No, because the man prevented her from harm.
D. No, because his conduct was socially acceptable.
D. No, because his conduct was socially acceptable.
Shopkeepers privilege
- Reasonable belief of shop lifting
- Detention must be on premises
- reasonable force
- limited duration
- purpose of investigation
A Plaintiff owned a large tract of land on the shore of a lake. The ∆ lived on a stream that ran along one boundary of the plaintiffs land and into the lake. At some time in the past, a channel had been cut across the plaintiffs land from the stream to the lake at a point some distance from the mouth of the stream. From where the ∆ lived, the channel served as a convenient shortcut to the lake. Erroneously believing that the channel was a public waterway, the ∆ made frequent trips through the channel in his motorboat. His use of the channel caused no harm to the land through which it passed. Once the ∆ learned of the plaintiffs ownership of the channel, he stopped using it as a shortcut.
If the Plaintiff asserts a claim for damages against the ∆ based on trespass, which of the following would be a correct disposition of the case?
A. Judgement for the plaintiff for nominal damages, because the defendant intentionally used the channel.
B. Judgement for the defendant, because he did not use the channel after learning of the plaintiffs ownership claim.
C. Judgement for the defendant, because he caused no harm to the plaintiffs land.
D. Judgement for the defendant, because when he used the channel he believed it was a public waterway.
A. Judgement for the plaintiff for nominal damages, because the defendant intentionally used the channel.
A competitive archer is preparing for a world archery competition in a distant state. He takes his bow and practice arrows to a remote abandoned gravel pit he saw while driving to the competition. The archer draws a circle in the hillside of the gravel pit as his target. At the gravel pit, the archer sees no footprints and hears no sounds. The archer spends most of his practice time smoothly pulling back the bowstrings and aiming but not shooting at the target. Unknown to the archer, the gravel pit is on a mountain bike path. A mountain biker suddenly rides right in front of the archer as he pulls back the bowstrings and aims at the target. The mountain biker becomes very afraid she was going to be shot and she nearly crashes her bike. The mountain biker sues the archer for the tort of assault. Can she make out the tortious conduct portion of the prima facie case for assault?
A. Yes because contact is not required for an assault
B. Yes, unless the bikers bike actually crashed
C. no, because the archer did not act
D. no, because the archer did not have the requisite intent
D. No, because the archer did not have the requisite intent
A hockey player who was playing in the final game of the season before a hostile crowd in the opponent’s packed stadium had an opportunity to get his team into the playoffs, but he missed a shot into an open net as the horn sounded, ending the game. As the crowd cheered and jeered, the puck bounced back to him and he shot it in anger toward the stands. A fan who had been looking the other way turned back toward the rink just in time to be struck in the face by the puck. He suffered a broken nose and a severe gash under his eye. After the game, the league commissioner fined the player for violating league rules by intentionally directing the puck out of the playing area.
If the fan sues the player for battery, will the fan likely prevail?
A. No, because by attending a hockey game, the fan assumed the risk of pucks being shot into the stands.
B. No, because the player did not have the intent to strike the fan with the puck.
C. Yes, because the player knew that it was substantially certain that a fan would be hit by the puck.
D. Yes, because the player violated league rules by intentionally shooting the puck out of the playing area.
C. Yes, because the player knew that it was substantially certain that a fan would be hit by the puck.
A ten-year-old girl is at a public park. The girl sees a swing, which she loves to use. Running to the swing, she sees a man holding a toddler starting to lower himself into the swing. The girl saw the man and toddler about to sit down, but she really wanted to swing. The girl grabs the swing from under the man and sits down on it. The man and toddler fall to the ground when the girl grabs the swing. The man injures his back and sues the girl for battery. Can the man prove the girl had the necessary intent for battery?
A. Yes, because the girl acted with the knowledge that the man was substantially certain to hit the ground
B. Yes, but only if the girl could fully appreciate how harmful a fall could be to a man holding a toddler
C. No, because the girl did not act volitionally
D. No, because the girl did not have the purpose to cause the man to hit the ground
A. Yes, because the girl acted with the knowledge that the man was substantially certain to hit the ground
A forty-five-year-old man was watching a baseball game with several of his friends including his best friend. At one point, the man pulled out a tin of chewing tobacco and began to put a wad of it in his mouth. He had just started to reach his mouth when his best friend, to the man's surprise, grabbed the tobacco tin out of the man's hand and shouted, “Don’t you know you can get cancer from this stuff?” The man was embarrassed when several other friends started mocking him, and he yelled, “get of my back you all!” Several weeks later, one of the man's friends posted a video of the exchange on social media, and the man sued his best friend for his injuries. Which of the following is the most likely outcome?
A. the man is likely to win under theory of assault.
B. The man is likely to win under a theory of battery
C. The man is likely to lose, because his best friends intent was to help the man, not hurt him
D. the man is likely to lose, because he suffered only emotional harm
B.The man is likely to win under a theory of battery
A customer is talking to a store manager and a delivery person who is bringing items to the store. While talking and gesturing wildly with her arms, the customer accidentally hits the delivery person in the nose, causing pain. Furious, the delivery person pushes the manager into the customer. The customer falls on a countertop, cutting her forehead. The customer and delivery person both sue the manager for battery. Will they succeed in their lawsuits?
A.) Yes, as to the customers suit against the manager, because the delivery person was the aggressor
B.) Yes, as to the delivery persons suit against the manager if the customer provoked the delivery person.
C. Yes, as to both suits against the manager.
D. No as to both suits against the manager
D. No as to both suits against the manager
A tabloid photographer wants to corner the market on photos of a rising politician. The photographer constantly follows the politician, jumping out at her to get vivid photos of the politician’s startled expressions. He surprises her in her backyard, on vacation, and while traveling. The politician now always travels with a guard to watch for, and alert her about, the photographer’s presence. Emerging from a meeting one afternoon, the photographer, dressed as a gorilla, tries to grab the politician while his associate videos the interaction. The guard pushes aside the photographer before he can grab the politician, and blocks the video. The politician is very disturbed and upset by the photographer’s escalating behavior. If the politician sues the photographer for assault:
A. The politician should lose, because her guard took preventative action to avoid harmful or offensive contact.
B. The politician should lose, because she was not afraid of the photographers attempted contact
C. The politician should win because she was put in imminent apprehension of offensive contact.
D. The politician should win, if she can prove she was actually afraid of being touched
C. The politician should win, because she was put in imminent apprehension of offensive contact
A student borrowed her roommate’s car to pick up a pizza that they had ordered. On the way and without permission from the roommate, the student drove the car to a bookstore approximately two miles from the pizzeria and spent 10 minutes in the store finding and purchasing a book she needed for a class. She arrived at the pizzeria 10 minutes after the pizza was supposed to be ready but had to wait a few more minutes for it to be done. She brought it back to the car, which she had parked on the street in a marked parallel parking space, and saw to her dismay that the car had been struck by a hit-and-run driver. There were a number of dents in the back of the car, amounting to $900 in damages.
If the roommate sues the student for the damage to her car, what will she likely recover?
A. Nothing, because the student had to wait for the pizza even after her 10-minute detour.
B. The value of the car before the accident, because the student used the car for unauthorized purposes.
C. $900, because the car was under the student’s control.
D. $900, because the student used the car for unauthorized purposes.
A. Nothing, because the student had to wait for the pizza even after her 10-minute detour.
A driver in the local racing circuit brought his customized yellow stock car to a body shop to have it repainted before the new racing season began. When the driver returned to pick up the car, he was horrified to discover that it was repainted pink instead of yellow. The owner of the body shop apologized and offered to repaint the car, but the driver refused because the first race was in two days. The driver lost a couple of endorsements because the endorsers’ ads did not work with the new color. He was also subjected to ridicule at the track, but he felt better after he drove the car to victory in the first race.
If the driver sues the body shop for their treatment of his car, will he prevail?
A. No, because he won the race with the car.
B. No, unless he can prove that the body shop breached a duty of care owed to him.
C. Yes, because the value of his car was reduced.
D. Yes, because he suffered severe distress as a result of the conduct of the body shop.
C. Yes, because the value of his car was reduced.
A customer entered a bookstore to look around and escape the pouring rain outside. She found a shelf with tiny books full of inspirational quotes. Carrying one of the tiny books, she walked to the back of the bookstore to find a comfortable seat where she could read some of the quotes. As she did so, she saw a large book full of beautiful pictures of the Italian alps. She stood and looked through the beautiful pictures for 20 minutes until the rain lessened, leaving the tiny book next to the others. Exiting the store, the customer was stopped by a manager who said that he thought the customer had stolen an expensive leather journal. The manager asked the customer to reenter the bookstore to further investigate the situation. The customer indicated she would rather not do so, but agreed when the manager threatened to summon a law enforcement officer. The customer was ushered into the manager’s office where he asked a female salesperson to search her coat and handbag. Neither the manager nor the salesperson found any stolen merchandise and released the customer after 15 minutes, apologizing for the inconvenience. The customer sued the bookstore for false imprisonment. Which of the following is the most likely outcome?
A. The customer is likely to win, because the bookstore manager intended to confined her within a bounded area, his office.
B. The customer is likely to win if she can show the manager had no reasonable basis for detaining her.
C. The customer is likely to lose, because she consented to return to the bookstore and enter the managers office.
D. The customer is likely to lose, because the bookstore had a right to protect its property and was privileged to stop and search any customer to find out if they had stolen any of its property
B. The customer is likely to win if she can show the manager had no reasonable basis for detaining her
A man is driving slowly down a residential street when a soccer ball rolls in front of his car. Just behind the soccer ball runs a young child. To avoid hitting the child, the man intentionally swerves onto a homeowner’s front yard, destroying shrubs and a flower garden. The homeowner sues the man for trespass to land. Can the homeowner prove the tortious conduct portion of the prima facie case for trespass to land?
A. Yes.
B. No,, because by driving onto the homeowners lawn, the man prevented a child from being severely injured.
C. No, because the man did not intend to drive on the homeowners property.
D. No, because the man did not intend to harm the homeowners property.
A. Yes
Farmer and an agriculture inspector are friends who often play practical jokes on one another. To pull a prank on the inspector, the farmer empties and cleans a jug labeled with highly toxic chemicals and fills it with colored water. When the inspector visits the farm, the farmer pretends to trip, threatening to spill the open jug’s contents on the inspector. The inspector lurches back, falling to the ground and breaking her wrist. The farmer wanted the inspector to think she would be contacted with toxic chemicals, but did not intend for the colored water to contact the inspector. Can the inspector prove the farmer had the necessary intent for a battery claim?
A. No, because the farmer did not intend any physical contact with the inspector
B. No, unless the inspector feared toxic chemicals would cause her physical harm
C. Yes, even though the farmer did not intend the inspector to have harmful contact with water or chemicals
D. Yes, because the farmer intended the inspector to have offensive contact with water looking like toxic chemicals
C. Yes, even though the farmer did not intend the inspector to have harmful contact with water or chemicals
A golfer and her instructor were playing golf in a foursome when the golfer became very annoyed with critical comments made by the instructor. To show the other golfers in the group how annoyed she was with her instructor, the golfer stood a few yards behind him while the instructor was teeing off and swung a club at him. The instructor, who was focusing on his shot, was not within range of the club but unfortunately the club slipped out of the golfer’s hands and struck the instructor in the head, injuring him.
If the instructor brings a battery action against the golfer, will he recover?
A. Yes, because the golfer acted intentionally and caused harmful contact to her instructor.
B. Yes, because the golfer intended to cause the instructor reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact.
C. No, because the golfer did not intend to cause harmful or offensive contact.
D. No, unless the golfer acted unreasonably in swinging the club at her instructor.
C. No, because the golfer did not intend to cause harmful or offensive contact.
An impatient driver who was fed up with jaywalking pedestrians drove straight at one of them, leaning on the horn and intending to make her jump. She did not hear him or change her pace, however, because her music player was turned to full volume. A bystander on the curb rushed out to pull her to safety. She tripped as she was being pulled to the curb, fracturing her kneecap.
If the pedestrian sues the driver for assault, what will be the likely result?
A. The driver wins, because the pedestrian did not know at the time that she was in danger from the driver.
B. The driver wins, because he did not intend for the pedestrian to be injured by his conduct.
C. The pedestrian wins, because the driver intended to create in her an apprehension of immediate harmful contact.
D. The pedestrian wins, because the driver’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing her injury.
A. The driver wins, because the pedestrian did not know at the time that she was in danger from the driver.
A missile company was engaged in research and development of an interplanetary space shuttle, under contract with the United States government. Over a period of years, it developed the prototype of a huge, solid-fuel rocket engine for use in this program. To evaluate the performance of this engine, it conducted a static test of the engine at a remote desert test site. The rocket engine was mounted on a concrete test stand, with the thrust of the engine directed downward into the ground. When the engine was fired up, huge clouds of flame and smoke filled the air, and particles of debris from the rocket fell onto an adjoining farm.
If the farmer files an action against the company for trespass, which of the following facts, if proved, would be most helpful to the company in avoiding liability?
A. The farmer bought and operated his farm knowing that the company used the adjoining property for testing its rocket engines.
B. Neither the company nor anyone in its employ set foot upon the farmer’s land.
C. The company had no reason to anticipate that the tests would cause any of the results that occurred.
D. The rocket testing program is essential to national security, so that the company’s conduct was completely privileged as a public necessity.
C. The company had no reason to anticipate that the tests would cause any of the results that occurred.