Assault & Battery
Battery is an (1) _____ act which brings about a (2) _____ OR ______ contact to another (3) _____.
Assault: An (1) ______ act which brings about a (2) reasonable ______ of (3) ______ harmful or offensive contact to another person.
Battery: An intentional act which brings about a harmful or offensive contact to another person
Assault: An intentional act which brings about a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact to another person.
Fill in the following blanks:
False Imprisonment is an (1) ______ act that (2) ______ another within a limited area (3) _____ his/her own ____.
IIED is (1) _____ (2) _____ or _____ conduct intended to cause (3) _____ harm to another person.
False Imprisonment is an intentional act that confines another within a limited area against his/her own will.
IIED is (1) intentional (2) extreme or outrageous conduct intended to cause (3) severe harm to another person.
3 Elements of Trespass to Land
1.
2.
3.
3 Elements of Trespass to Chattel
1.
2.
3.
Elements of Trespass to Land
1. Intent
2. Onto Land: an actor or actor causes a thing, themselves or another person
3. Remains: actor or actor permits a thing to remain.
Elements to Trespass to Chattel
1. Intent
2. Interference--Dispossession: Owner was deprived of the chattels use.
3. Use or Intermeddling: Directly damages/harms the chattel.
Conversion is the (1) _____ interference with another's right of (2) _____, and the interference is so serious to warrant the actor pay ____ value.
Conversion:
The intentional interference with another's right of possession, and the interference is so serious to warrant the actor to pay full value.
What are the six defenses to intentional torts?
1. C
2. D
3. D
4. S
5. R
6. N
1. CONSENT: Actor is not liable if plaintiff consented to the act. (consent can expire)
2. SELF-DEFENSE: Actor is not liable to plaintiff if actor has reasonable grounds to believe that he is about to be attacked.
3. DEFENSE OF OTHERS: Actor is not liable to plaintiff if actor has a reasonable belief that the person being aided would have the right of self-defense.
4. DEFENSE OF REAL PROPERTY: Actor is not liable if actor used reasonable force to prevent a commission of a tort against his or her property.
5. RECOVERY OF PROPERTY: Actor may use peaceful means to recover chattel.
6. NECESSITY: An actor may interfere with property of another where reasonably and necessary to avoid a more serious injury.
A man was sitting on a bus playing a game on his new handheld game console. Another passenger sat down next to him, said, “Hey, I always wanted to see how that system worked,” and grabbed the console out of the man’s hands. Does this satisfy the elements of battery?
A. It is only a battery if the passenger touched the man’s hand when he grabbed the console.
B. It is a battery if the passenger contacted the console when the man was holding it.
C. It is not a battery because the passenger did not intend to cause harm, but only to look at the console.
D. It is not a battery unless the man suffered severe emotional distress.
B IS CORRECT. Note that the question simply asks whether these facts satisfy the elements of battery. This is the best answer. It is not necessary for the passenger to touch the man’s hand to constitute battery, and it is not necessary to intent to cause “harm” so long as the intended contact was offensive.
Bet, the owner of Bet’s Bookstore, a small establishment in a modest strip mall, was standing at the door to her establishment one morning when she saw a particularly annoying political canvasser emerge from one of the other stores in the mall and then enter the next store closer to Bet’s. Not wanting to deal with the canvasser, Bet watched him come down the line of stores until he exited the store next to hers. Bet quickly locked the door of her store, switched the “Open” sign to “Closed”, and hid behind the counter. While she was doing this the only other person in her store was Bill, who was browsing the magazines in the rear. Bill began to walk towards the front of the store as the canvasser left, and he saw Bet quickly unlock the door, switch the sign back, and return to her sales counter. Bill asked what had happened and was incensed that Bet had locked him in the store. If Bill sues Bet for false imprisonment who will prevail?
A. Bet will prevail because Bill voluntarily entered the store.
B. Bet will prevail because Bill was not aware of the confinement until it was over.
C. Bill will prevail providing that Bet knew he was in the store.
D. Bill will prevail because confinement itself counts as “injury” in a false imprisonment claim.
B Is Correct. According to the Restatement Second of Torts, the plaintiff in a claim of false imprisonment must either be aware of the confinement or be harmed by it. Apparently the basis of the claim is that confinement of a person against their will and without consent is an actionable affront to their personhood. However, the affront is not present if the plaintiff was not aware of the confinement, or was not harmed by it. In this case, Bill was not aware of the momentary confinement, and his movements were in no way hindered by it. This is true even though Bet knew he was in the store when she locked the door to keep the canvasser out. And while confinement is indeed the injury in these cases, it must be combined with knowledge on the part of the plaintiff. Finally, voluntarily entering the store does not include some sort of consent to be confined there.
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 Bingo’s taking shelter from the storm under Duke’s trees, which of the following statements is true?
A. Duke cannot recover because the initial entry was not tortious.
B. Duke can state a prima facie case of trespass to land against Bingo.
C. Since Bingo entered Duke’s land unwillingly, Bingo still lacks the intent needed to commit trespass.
D. Duke cannot recover because his order to Bingo to leave the land was unjustified under the circumstances.
B is Correct. In this case, Bingo has a choice of where to go once his car is swept off the road. He chose to stay on Duke’s land, and indeed walked further onto the property. Since he now has freedom of action and has deliberately remained on the property, he is committing trespass to land. He now intends to be on Duke’s land.
Kluck, while a guest in Parma’s home, noticed that the finish on the antique writing desk was extremely dirty. Although Parma had told Kluck not to touch the desk, Kluck decided to do Parma a favor and clean up the desk. In doing so, Kluck removed the original finish on the desk, which had not been disturbed since 1750. By so doing, Kluck destroyed the value of the desk as an antique. With the original dirty finish the desk had been worth $50,000; cleaned up the desk was only worth about $10,000. In an action for conversion by Parma against Kluck, which of the following is correct?
A. Kluck would prevail because Kluck did not intend to damage the desk.
B. Parma would prevail, but could only recover at most $40,000, the difference in value of the desk before and after the refinishing.
C. Parma would prevail and could recover the full market value of the desk, $50,000; Kluck would now own the desk.
D. Parma would prevail and could recover the full market value of the desk, $50,000; Parma would retain ownership of the desk.
C is Correct. Altering the desk in this manner is an act of dominion and control that would constitute a conversion. The remedy for conversion is in effect a forced sale. Parma can recover the full market value of the desk, but the ownership of the desk then transfers to Kluck. If Parma wants to sue for the loss in value and keep ownership of the desk, Parma could do so in a trespass to chattels count. In conversion, however, it would be inaccurate to state that Parma could only recover the loss in value.
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 Is Correct. Under these facts, there was no actual or implied consent. Consent can be manifested by conduct, but here all Tolbert did was stand in line with Marcus. When Pimmy asked for a show of consent, Tolbert did not provide it. Asking for consent is good, but Pimmy should have paid attention to the response.
A patient went to a dermatologist to correct acne scarring. During the procedure, while the patient was sedated, the dermatologist decided to remove a large and rather ugly mole from the patient’s face without asking the patient if she wanted the mole removed. The dermatologist assumed that the patient would be pleased, and a reasonable person would have been happy to have the mole removed. However it turned out that the patient liked the mole and, when she recovered from the sedation, she was unhappy to find that the dermatologist had removed it.
If the patient wishes to sue the dermatologist for battery, is she likely to prevail?
A. No, because a reasonable person would have consented to removal of the mole.
C IS CORRECT. The patient likely has a valid claim against the dermatologist for battery because, even if it was true that a reasonable person would not have objected to the mole removal, the reasonable person standard only applies to contact that is claimed to be offensive but not harmful. A contact is harmful when it involves a physical injury, and here, where there was a surgical cutting by a doctor, the patient could prove harm because it was done without her consent. While the patient did consent to contact by the dermatologist, it was for the purpose of the acne procedure, and the mole removal exceeded the scope of that consent.
A debt collection firm subjected an elderly man to a long series of abusive practices trying to collect a debt owed by the man’s grandson, who was in jail. The harassment included repeated telephone calls, threats to have the man arrested, threats to have the IRS audit the man’s taxes, and even threats of physical violence. The man finally hired a lawyer to see if he could get this to stop, and the lawyer decided to sue the debt collector for intentional infliction of emotional distress. At the man’s deposition, when asked about the emotional distress he had suffered, the man said: “Are you kidding? I served three tours in Vietnam, survived four hurricanes, three recessions, and the death of my beloved wife from cancer. If these punks think that they can bother me with this stuff they are laughably wrong.” How does the elderly man's statement effect his IIED claim?
A. The IIED claim has just disappeared.
B. The IIED claim will fail because debt collection is a legal business.
C. The IIED claim will succeed because the conduct was outrageous.
D. The IIED claim will fail because the man is not a proper expert on emotional injury.
A is Correct. Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires that the plaintiff in fact experience severe emotional distress. Here, the plaintiff may have just testified himself out of the cause of action.
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 of 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 is Correct. For purposes of trespass to land, it is not necessary that the actor be aware that he or she is in fact entering onto land belonging to another, so long as it appears that the actor in fact intends to be on the particular piece of land in question. For example, a person who mistakenly enters land belonging to another is liable for the trespass. This actor would be liable for at least nominal damages even though the entry caused no damage to the owner or the land. In this case, however, Bingo did not intentionally enter Duke’s property. Instead, Bingo’s car was washed off the road and he involuntarily ended up on Duke’s land. At that point, it appears he was not able to depart because of the depth of the water. Because Bingo did not intend to be on Duke’s property at all, but was propelled there by forces beyond his control, Bingo is not liable for trespass.
Without permission, Bolton placed an old car in the abandoned barn on the farm belonging to his neighbor, Fisk. Without knowing that the car was in the barn, Fisk sold the farm to Wedge. While inspecting the property, Wedge discovered the car in the old barn. Wedge moved some of his own farm equipment into the barn, put a padlock on the barn door, and asked Fisk who owned the car. Fisk said he didn’t know, but suggested it might belong to Bolton. Bolton meanwhile had discovered that the door to the barn was locked, which prevented him from removing his car. The next day, Wedge contacted Bolton and told him he could remove the car from the barn. Bolton then sued Fisk and Wedge for conversion.
A. Bolton will not prevail because he was a trespasser.
B. Bolton will not prevail because no conversion occurred.
C. Bolton will prevail against Fisk, but not against Wedge.
D. Bolton will prevail against Wedge, but not against Fisk.
B Is Correct. The interference with Bolton’s right to possession of the car was minimal, and neither Fisk nor Wedge acted with intent to interfere with Bolton’s rights. Fisk did not even know the car was there, and Wedge acted promptly to locate the owner of the car. Neither made any claim to the car. It is true that Bolton was a trespasser in this situation, but that conduct does not cause a loss of the title to the car.
A man was sitting on a bus playing a game on his new handheld game console. Another passenger sat down next to him, said, “Hey, I always wanted to see how that system worked, may I look at it?” The man held the console out and said “Sure, take a look,” after which the passenger grabbed the console out of the man’s hands.
After the passenger had played with the console for a while, the man asked for it back. The passenger said, “It’s mine now,” and started to get up. The man grabbed the passenger by the wrist with one hand and took back the console with the other, while saying “Keep your grubby hands off my game!” If the passenger sues for battery will the passenger prevail?
A.Yes, it is a battery because the man intended an offensive contact.
B. Yes, because the man had no privilege to take it back because he consented to the passenger’s use.
C. No, the passenger will not prevail because the man had a privilege to recover his game console.
D. No, the passenger will not prevail because the man did not intend to harm the passenger.
C Is Correct. Reasonable force may be used to recover personal property so long as the party is in “hot pursuit”, which is to say that the response is immediate and not after some length of time. Here, the passenger is not only refusing to return the console, but appears to be about to walk off with it. The man would have a privilege to recover the console, and has do
Jess, who walked with the aid of a cane, was standing on a street corner one day, waiting for the traffic light to change. Pranks quietly walked up behind Jess and, thinking it would be a good gag, kicked the base of Jess’s cane. Although the bottom of the cane came off the ground, Jess had not been leaning on it heavily. Jess lost his balance slightly, but did not fall, and was not injured. Jess turned around to see Pranks laughing at him. Jess got mad and whacked Pranks over the head with the cane. If Jess sues Pranks for battery, who will prevail?
A. Jess will prevail because losing his balance counts as “harm.”
B. Jess will prevail because the contact with his cane, while he was holding it, is the equivalent of an offensive contact with his person.
C. Pranks will prevail because he intended only to play a joke, not to cause any physical harm.
D. Pranks will prevail because Jess suffered no actual injury.
B is Correct. Battery requires an intended harmful or offensive contact with the person of another, but such a contact with something closely connected to the person’s body, such as clothing or something the person is holding, will be considered contact with the other’s body and so sufficient to support a battery claim. Furthermore, kicking someone’s support in this manner, even as a joke, is at least offensive. Answers involving “harm” may be incorrect because what the plaintiff must show is a harmful or offensive contact. Also, it is not necessary that the defendant intend to cause “harm” in the sense of physical injury. If the joke that was intended involved intentionally inflicting an offensive contact, then the defendant had the intent necessary for a battery. Here the injury was the affront to Jess’s personhood and dignity.
Bet, the owner of Bet’s Bookstore, was in the habit of locking up each day at 1:00 p.m. so that she could eat her lunch in peace. One day she locked the front door of the shop and heated some soup in her microwave oven. She was just sitting down to enjoy her nice, hot soup when Mary, a customer whom she did not know was still in the store, tried the front door and found it locked. Mary asked Bet to open the door so she could leave, but Bet told her she would have to wait until she finished her lunch. This took about 15 minutes, after which Bet opened the door and let a very angry Mary depart. If Mary sues Bet for false imprisonment, who will prevail? (Assume in this question that no rear entrance is available.)
If Mary sues Bet for false imprisonment, who will prevail? (Assume in this question that no rear entrance is available.)
A. Mary will prevail because she was confined without her consent.
B. Mary will prevail because Bet was negligent in locking the store without checking to see if customers were present.
C. Bet will prevail because she did not know Mary was there when she locked the door.
D. Bet will prevail because the confinement was brief.
A is Correct. Although Bet did not know about Mary when she first locked up the shop, once she became aware of her presence and her demand to leave, she had no privilege to confine her in the store. At that point she had a duty to unlock the door so Mary could depart. Bet has intent at this point because now she is aware of Mary’s presence. Since false imprisonment is an intentional tort, Bet would not have been liable for negligently locking Mary in. It is only after she becomes aware of Mary that her failure to unlock the door becomes a problem. Although the confinement was brief, it was sufficiently long to affront Mary and invade her interest in freedom of movement.
Tami picks up what she believes to be a school workbook and begins filling out the questions in it with a ballpoint pen. Only after she completes several pages of the book does she discover that the book is not hers, but belongs to her classmate, Biff.
A. This is a trespass to chattel because Tami has intermeddled with the chattel and impaired its condition.
B. This is a trespass to chattel because Tami was negligent in not making sure the book belonged to her before she began writing in it.
C. This is not a trespass to chattel because Tami lacked intent to interfere with the possessions of another.
D. This is not a trespass to chattel because Tami’s harm to the book was minor.
A is Correct. Trespass to chattel requires intent, so negligence is not sufficient. However, the intent required is simply an intent to intermeddle with the chattel. It is not necessary that the defendant be aware that the chattel belongs to another, or that the intermeddling will interfere with another’s rights of possession. Here, Tami intended to mark up the book, under the mistaken impression that it was her own. In the process she impaired its condition, making her liable for the harm done to Biff’s book.
John, age 33, was visiting his mother one day and noticed a very nice diamond ring on the kitchen sink counter. John and his mother had always had a rocky relationship. John was short of money, but his mother thought he was lazy so she refused to loan him any. John decided to take a little revenge on his mother and he stole the ring. John had specific plans for the ring. John was dating a wonderful women, Beth, and John gave the ring to Beth. He explained it wasn’t really an engagement ring; it was just a gift for Beth’s birthday. Beth was delighted with the ring and wore it proudly. Several years later, Beth had realized that John was never going to get a decent job and never going to ask her to get married. Beth had not worn the ring for a year, so she sold it. She sold the ring to a friend for a reasonable price. John’s mother had been searching for the ring for several years and had no idea what had happened to it. One day, John’s mother was in a restaurant and saw the ring on a young lady’s finger. It was in fact the ring that the young lady had purchased from Beth. John’s mother called the police, they came, and confiscated the ring until the courts could sort it out. If John’s mother sues Beth’s friend for the value of the ring:
A. Beth’s friend will win since she bought the ring in good faith.
B. Beth’s friend will win since she had no intent to convert the ring.
C. John’s mother will win in an action for conversion since Beth exercised dominion over the ring.
D. John’s mother’s only action would be against John since he was the original thief.
C Is Correct. Beth’s friend did exercise dominion over the ring contrary to the rights of the true owner. Even though Beth’s friend acted in good faith, that is, she thought she had the right to buy the ring, her good faith is not a defense. It should be noted that John was the first converter of the ring, when he stole it. Beth received the ring in good faith as a gift, but she was also a converter of the ring. John cannot transfer a better title to the ring then the one he has, and as a thief he has no title at all. Since Beth is a converter of the ring, her friend is a converter once she purchases it. Again, Beth cannot transfer better title than the one she has.
It should also be noted that the measure of damages would the value of the ring at the time it was converted.
Wilber was hiking in the woods near a lake where several summer cabins were located. As he rounded a large rock near the trail he surprised a bear, which approached him aggressively. Wilber ran back up the trail towards an unoccupied cabin belonging to Townes. The bear ambled after Wilber, who banged on the door of the cabin and then, as the bear approached, kicked in the door. The bear followed Wilber in and discovered the pantry, after which the bear lost interest in Wilber and began eating the food stored there. Wilber exited through a back door and ran back to his car. He called the local rangers, who were able to capture the bear. Before they did so, however, the bear had destroyed most of the interior of the cabin. Townes sues Wilber in trespass for the damage to the cabin.
A. Townes will recover for all damage to the cabin because Wilber had no privilege to trespass.
B. Townes will recover for all damage to the cabin because Wilber was using Townes’s property to save himself.
C. Townes will recover only for the damage to the door, not for the damage caused by the bear.
D. Wilber will prevail because he had a privilege to use Townes’s property to save himself from harm.
B Is Correct. This case involves the privilege of private necessity, which is an incomplete or qualified privilege. Under this privilege an individual threatened with serious injury may use the real or personal property of another for protection. If in the course of doing so, however, the property is damaged, the user must compensate the owner. Therefore, Townes would have a right to compensation for the damage to the cabin. There is no real basis for trying to distinguish the harm done by Wilber from the harm done by the bear. The bear was able to cause the damage because Wilbur’s trespass made the bear’s entry possible. So Wilber did have a privilege, in the sense that if Towne had been present he could not have forced Wilber off the property and into the jaws of the bear. But Wilber must pay for the damage done by his trespass.