Intentional Torts
The difference between purpose intent and knowledge intent?
What is a person has purpose intent if they have a desire (goal, aim, objective) to bring about a legally forbidden consequence
A person has knowledge intent if they act knowing that a legally forbidden consequence is virtually certain to result, even if they don't want to product the consequence (knowledge to a substantial degree of certainty) ex. Garrett. v Daily
What are the three legal rules that capture the idea of "protective privileges"?
Self-defense, defense of others, and defense of property
What are the 5 elements of Negligence?
1) existence of a "duty of care" to the plaintiff
2) defendant "breached" the duty of care
3) causal connection between tortious conduct and resulting injury (factual causation)
4) injury to plaintiff was within scope of liability of defendant's conduct (proximate cause)
5) actually loss/damages suffered by plaintiff
What is the "But For" Test?
speculates on whether but for the defendant's breach, the plaintiff would be injured or uninjured.
Logan, betrayed and heartbroken, is standing across from his best friend Patrick, his eyes filled with rage and confusion. Moments ago, he uncovered the devastating truth—his beloved Angelina, his girlfriend, had been seeing Patrick behind his back. Now, in the throes of heartbreak-fueled adrenaline, Logan has a gun pointed squarely at Patrick.
Patrick, pale and uncertain if this is all a cruel joke or a real-life showdown, has no idea if the gun is loaded. His heart is pounding, and he’s sweating, wondering if he’s about to pay the ultimate price for love.
So, does Patrick have a valid claim for assault here?
What are the three elements of battery
The plaintiff must prove that the defendant
1) acted intentionally
2) that the plaintiff suffered suffered either a harm or offense
3) that the harm or offense involved a contact with the body/touch
What are the two basic kinds of implied consent?
Apparent Consent: consent that which a reasonable person would infer from plaintiff's conduct (minor bumping in a crowd)
Consent Implied by law: situations where action is necessary to save a person's life (ex. surgery after car accident)
What is the applicable standard of care?
The Reasonably Prudent Person Standard of Care
-must act with the same degree of care that would be used by a hypothetical reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances
Unascertainable Causes: In case involving multiple defendants in which they all committed a breach of duty, but only one of the breaches led to a harm to the plaintiff and we cannot determine which breach produced the harm, what have courts held about the burden of proof?
burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show that their breach did not cause the injury. If neither defendants can successfully prove, then defendants will be held jointly liable
For a bystander who is outside the zone of danger from the risk of physical injury but who suffers emotional distress from seeing the defendant negligently injure another, what must the plaintiff show to allow for recovery?
1) the plaintiff and the person injured by the defendant are closely related
2) the plaintiff was present at the scene of the injury
3) the plaintiff personally observed or perceived the event.
What are the elements of Assault?
Plaintiff must show
1) Intent
2) His or her own reasonable apprehension of battery by defendant
3) and that the battery was imminent
What is the difference between Public Necessity and Private Necessity and how does it impact one's possible defense?
Public: Where the act is to avert an imminent public disaster, the defense is absolute. (ex. Surrocco v. Geary)
Private: Where the act is solely to prevent an emergency that poses a threat only to his own interests (e.g., the actor ties up his boat to another’s dock in a storm), the defense is not absolute; i.e., the actor must pay for any injury he causes
What are some considerations to evaluate whether an act is reasonable or unreasonable?
risk of harm, magnitude of harm, cost of socio-utility
(ex. Pipher v. Parsell--cost of preventing the crash was 0, and socio-utility in letting woman grab the wheel was 0)
(ex. Chicago Railroad v. Krayenbuhl--high risk and magnitude of harm that someone will get hurt, low cost for railroad to prevent the harm)
What are some tools that can be used to determine causation, even if we don't know precisely how a damage occured?
statistical evidence, doubling test, whether it has been tested/published
What is a Child's Duty of Care?
Child’s Duty of Care: Duty to act as a reasonable child of their age would, unless participating in an inherently dangerous activity, in which case, held to adult standard. (ex. Robinson case--snowmobile tubing)
To prove Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, a plaintiff must show these elements:
1) Defendant acted either intentionally or recklessly
2) defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct
3) as a result, plaintiff suffered severe distress
What are some patterns a courts consider to analyze the 2nd element?
Courts consider whether the defendant's conduct was continuous or on-going
Courts consider whether the defendant's conduct involves an abuse of authority
when defending one's property, what are the requirements for using non-lethal mechanical devices to protect property?
Existence of a privilege for devices depends on whether the device is
1) necessary
2) proportionate to the interest being protected
3) others would be aware that such a device might be in place
4) not likely to cause serious harm
(ex. Think Katko case where the farmer setup that insane shotgun trap)
What is the Dilemma of Subsequent Remedial Measures?
When a defendant takes steps to fix or improve a condition after an injury or accident, such as adding safety features to a product. Although this could suggest negligence, tort law generally prohibits using these remedial actions as evidence of liability. The rationale is to encourage improvements without fear of them being used as admissions of fault.
What is the current legal standard for determining the scope of liability (causation) in negligence cases?"
Most courts today take the view that a defendant should be liable for all foreseeable consequences of his negligent acts that injure foreseeable victims
(ex. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. -- fireworks)
What is Market-Share Liability?
Market-Share Liability: When P cannot show which of multiple manufacturers of the same fungible good caused a specific harm, manufacturers will all be proportionally liable for their market share at the time of injury. (ex. Sindell case--DES cancer-causing drug)
What is the difference between trespass to chattels and conversion?
The main difference between trespass to chattels and conversion is the degree of interference.
Trespass to chattels refers to the use of property without permission of the property owner. A trespass to chattels is an act that falls short of conversion. It doesn't require that damage be done to the full value of property with complete loss of use.
Conversion occurs when a person uses or alters a piece of personal property belonging to someone else without the owner's consent and seriously interferes with the owner's right to control it
Aubrie, the thrill-seeker, stands 100 feet away, confidently aiming her bow and arrow at Nikolai, who’s bravely balancing an apple on his head. She assured him she was a "professional trick-shot artist," which, was a complete lie. Nikolai, who was initially distracted by Aubrie's busty corset, starts to wonder if trusting Aubrie’s supposed skills was a huge mistake. Was consent effective here?
No! If the expressly given consent has been induced by fraud, the consent generally is not a defense.
What effect does the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur have?
It shifts the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant and helps to "smoke out evidence"
reasonably permits conclusion that such events do not ordinarily occur unless someone has been negligent
Does lack of foreseeability of harm block a defendant from liability?
No, a defendant must take a plaintiff as they find him and may be held liable in damages for aggravation of a pre-existing illness, even if it was unforeseeable
For the plaintiff to use Res Ipsa Loquitur, what must the plaintiff establish?
1) that the thing causing their injury was under Defendant's exclusive control, and
2) that the injury would not have occurred in the ordinary course of events without negligence.
(ex. Larson case--hotel chair out window)