INTENTIONAL TORTS
DEFENSES TO INTENTIONAL TORTS
STATE OF MIND
NEGLIGENCE
100

Actual and reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery

What are the elements of Assault?

100

What are the five defenses to intentional torts? 

Consent, self defense, defense of others, and defense of property, and necessity for trespass

100

This state of mind falls between negligence and intent and occurs when a defendant knows of a risk of harm but consciously disregards it.

What is recklessness 

100

Without such act/omission from the defendant, the injury would not have occurred 

What is the "But for" test? 

200

A criminal driving toward a police officer deliberately swerves his car toward the officer, causing the officer to believe he is about to be hit. The car stops before making contact. What intentional tort may the officer have a claim for?

What is assault?

200

Protecting my own interest or safety, and having to pay damages

What is the special defense to trespass, private necessity?

200

 A defendant intends to make physical contact with another person but is unaware that the contact will cause any harm. Under a  _______   _______  jurisdiction the intent requirement for battery is satisfied

What is single intent? 

200

If the actor in fact possesses more than the minimum of those qualities, he is required to exercise those superior qualities.

What is the reasonable person under extraordinary skill & knowledge 

300
Soon or in the future 

What is not imminent? 

300

Notice is given that all such contact will no longer be tolerated

What is revocation of consent?  

300

A defendant intentionally taps another person on the shoulder as a joke. The person has sensitive skin and the tap leaves a large black bruise. The defendant intended the physical contact but did not intend for the contact to be harmful or offensive. Under a dual-intent approach to battery, would the defendant be liable, and why or why not?

What is: No, under dual intent, the defendant must intend to make contact and intend for that contact to be harmful or offensive.

300

When there are no attendant circumstances that would arouse his suspicions as to their character, there can be no presumption of law that he had such knowledge.

What is hindsight is not a part of negligence? 

400

average member of the community would raise resentment against actor and lead him to exclaim outrageous

what is the IIED standard for deciding outrageous conduct

400

What 3 requirements must be met for an employee to successfully assert Shopkeeper’s Privilege?

What is a reasonable manner, for a reasonable time, if the employee has reasonable belief the customer has stolen or is attempting to steal

400

Reasonable individual in the community

What is an objective standard?

400

A store employee notices that a heavy display is becoming unstable. Fixing it would take 10 minutes and cost almost nothing. The employee decides not to fix it. There is a relatively small chance that it will fall, but if it does, a customer could suffer a serious injury.Which negligence principle provides a way to evaluate whether the employee's failure to act was unreasonable?

What is the Learned Hand Formula?

500

conscious of the confinement, physically/tangibly harmed by it, or the child exception

What is the modern knowledge standard for False Imprisonment? 

500

A homeowner installs a spring-loaded shotgun designed to fire at anyone who enters his unoccupied cabin. A trespasser enters and is seriously injured by the device. The homeowner argues that the trespasser was committing a crime and therefore consented to the risk of deadly force. Under the common-law rule, why does this defense fail?

Deadly force cannot be used to protect property under the common law?

500

Putting another in apprehension of either harmful or offensive bodily contact, and such act causes bodily contact with the other person, one is liable to the other for a battery, even though the act was not done with the intent to bring about such a result.

What is transfer of intent? 

500

A driver sees a child suddenly run into the street. The driver swerves and hits another car. The driver argues that the emergency excuses the accident. What must be true for the sudden-emergency instruction to potentially apply?

What are: The driver was not negligent beforehand, there was no time for reflection because of a sudden-onset emergency, and the driver's reaction was spontaneous?

M
e
n
u