Intent
Define General Intent
Occurs when an individual’s action was intentional, but the consequences were not. However, the actor acted with substantial certainty that those consequences would consequently lead to harm occurring.
Define Assault and Battery
Battery
1) Intentional
2) Bodily contact with the plaintiff’s person or object intimately connected with their person
Can be direct or indirect
3) Harmful or Offensive
Assault
1) Intent
2) Reasonable apprehension or fear of a harmful or offensive contact
3) Imminent
Words alone are not enough
What are the privileges for Intentional Torts
Defense of property, defense of others, recovery of property, necessity, consent, self-defense, lawful authority.
Generally
Defendant has the burden of proving the existence of a privilege and that the privilege was exercised reasonably under the circumstances.
Duty
When does one owe duty to another
Common Issues
In determining whether a duty is to be imposed, courts must engage in a rather complex analysis that weighs and balances several related factors, including the nature of the underlying risk of harm, that is, its foreseeability and severity, the opportunity and ability to exercise care to prevent the harm, the comparative interests of, and the relationships between or among the parties, and ultimately, based on considerations of public policy and fairness, the societal interest in the proposed solution.
Generally, one does not owe a duty to another unless
There is a special relationship between plaintiff and defendant
Defendant creates the emergency
Defendant assumes duty and increases risk of harm or plaintiff detrimentally relies
J.S. M.S / duty arises based upon a particularized foreseeability of a terrible risk
Psychiatrist Duty to Disclose / Factors
a) how well can violence be predicted
b) what to do beyond duty to warn
c) identifying the class to whom the duty is owed
Common issues
Premises Liability
Pure economic harm- no duty
NIED
Unborn Children
Wrongful death
Wrongful life
Mother’s injury to fetus
Malpractice sterilization
Special Relationships / Failure to Act
Facts:
While walking through a crowded student union, Mia sees her classmate Evan laughing with friends. Wanting to get his attention, Mia sneaks up behind him and gives him a playful shove on the shoulder. Evan, who had just undergone shoulder surgery, yelps in pain as his shoulder reopens slightly. He immediately needs medical attention. Mia insists she “barely touched him” and “didn’t mean to hurt anyone.”
Issue:
Did Mia commit battery against Evan?
Mia intentionally touched Evan by shoving his shoulder. Although she did not intend to harm him, she intended to make contact, satisfying intent. Because Evan’s shoulder was injured, the contact resulted in actual harm. Even if Mia did not know about his medical condition, she is still liable because the injury’s extent is irrelevant once harmful contact occurs. Her “playful” intent does not negate the tort since offensive or harmful contact that is unconsented to constitutes battery.
Conclusion:
Mia committed battery against Evan.
Define Specific Intent
Occurs when an individual not only intends to commit an act but also intends the specific consequences of that act.
Define False Imprisonment
1) Intent
2) Confinement
Confinement means that the plaintiff was held captive in a bounded area with no reasonable means of escape
Means of escape are unreasonable if the plaintiff does not know of its existence and it is not apparent, or if they pose harm to the plaintiff’s body/clothes or another person
If the plaintiff engages in an unreasonable means of escape, the defendant is not held liable for those increased injuries
3) Consciousness of Confinement
Contemporaneously aware and conscious of your confinement
4) Without Legal Justification
Define express and implied consent
Consent as a matter of law and in sports
Express Consent: The plaintiff clearly states their consent to the act in question
Implied Consent: consent is implied if a reasonable person would interpret the plaintiff’s conduct as evidence of permission to act
Consent as a matter of law: if emergency action is necessary to prevent his death or serious injury, a reasonable person would be expected to consent under the circumstances (unconscious GSW victim on street)
Sports: if you play violent sports you consent to a certain level of play, not an elbow to the face after the whistle (football).
Breach of Duty
What is the test
Common Issues
The court will consider what standard of care the defendant was held to and whether his conduct failed to meet that standard of care. Reasonable prudent person standard.
Test: B<PL
Common Issues
Industry custom
Professional standard of care
Locality Debate
Informed consent
Negligence Per Se
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Facts:
During an argument in a dorm common area, Leo becomes angry at his roommate, Chris. Leo raises his fist, takes a step forward, and yells, “I’m going to knock you out right now!” Chris freezes, believing Leo is about to hit him. Unknown to Chris, Leo had no real intention of striking — he only wanted to scare him. Another student steps in before Leo lowers his fist. Chris later sues Leo for assault.
Issue:
Has Leo committed assault by creating reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact?
Application:
Leo intentionally raised his fist and advanced toward Chris while shouting a direct threat of immediate harm. Chris reasonably believed Leo was about to strike him the contact appeared imminent and Leo had the apparent ability to carry it out. The fact that Leo secretly did not intend to actually hit Chris is irrelevant; what matters is that he intended to create the apprehension. Since another student intervened before the punch, no contact occurred, but assault does not require contact.
Conclusion:
Leo committed assault against Chris.
Define Transferred Intent and when it can be applied
Transferred intent is when you mean to commit an intentional tort against one person, but commit it against another
Applies to assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels
Define Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
1) Intent
2) Conduct was extreme and outrageous
When it exceeds all bounds that could be tolerated by a decent society
Imbalance of power (student/employee)
Repeated/Prolonged abuse
Hypersensitivity/vulnerabilities known and abused anyway
3) Causation
4) Emotional Distress was Severe
Distress so severe no reasonable person could be expected to endure it
What are the types of invalid consent
Mistake, Fraud, Duress, and Exceeding of Scope are all invalid consent
Mistake: The defendant knew about the plaintiff’s mistake of fact or law as to the nature or consequences of the defendant’s act
Fraud: consent is not affected if induced by the defendant’s intentional deceit
Duress: consent is not effective it is induced by a threat of imminent harm to the plaintiff or false assertion of authority
Scope of Consent: consent is not monolithic, can exceed scope or be revoked
Cause in Fact
Start with negligence in the air and then the two tests
Common Issues
“Negligence in the air” is not a lawsuit, you have to connect the breach to injury
For cause in fact to be established, there must be a causative nexus or connection between the breach and the injury. It is not enough that a defendant acted negligently, that negligence must be tied and connected to the plaintiff’s injury in a positive manner.
“But for” the defendant’s breach of duty, the harm would not have occurred.
More dispositive than substantial factor but difficult to prove where multiple factors could have contributed to Plaintiff’s injury.
Defendant's breach of duty was a “substantial factor” in bringing about the plaintiff’s injury.
Common Issues
Toxic tort cases
Joint and several liability
Summers v. Tice
Market share liability
Facts:
At a clothing store, a security guard named Dana notices Jordan placing a bracelet in their pocket. Believing Jordan is shoplifting, Dana confronts them near the exit and says, “You’re not going anywhere until the police arrive.” Jordan insists they were only holding the bracelet before deciding not to buy it and placed it back. Dana blocks the doorway and keeps Jordan there for 20 minutes while waiting for another employee to check the cameras. The footage shows Jordan did nothing wrong. Dana immediately lets Jordan go.
Issue:
Did Dana commit false imprisonment by unlawfully restraining Jordan?
Dana intentionally confined Jordan by blocking the exit and stating they could not leave. Jordan was aware of the confinement. The shopkeeper’s privilege could apply because Dana suspected theft and detained Jordan for verification. However, the reasonableness of the detention is key. Here, Dana detained Jordan for 20 minutes and had no clear evidence before doing so. Once the footage showed no theft, Dana released Jordan. Because there was no probable cause before the detention and 20 minutes may exceed what’s necessary under the circumstances, the privilege may not apply.
Conclusion:
Dana likely committed false imprisonment, as the detention was intentional, without sufficient cause, and may have been unreasonable in duration.
Common issues
Mistake= Does not generally negate intent
Insanity= Mentally disabled is liable if plaintiff can prove intent
Children= Liable if plaintiff can prove the act was voluntary and they know the nature of the act
Define Trespass to Land
1) Intent
2) Causes Physical Invasion with Plaintiff’s Exclusive Possession of their Land
3) Without authorization or consent
Shopkeepers Privilege
Moral Persuasion and Duress
A merchant may detain an individual for alleged shoplifting so long as
- Detention was in a reasonable manner
- Based on a reasonable suspicion
- For a reasonable amount of time
Moral Persuasion v. Duress
Moral persuasion does not constitute force or threat. There is no false imprisonment for moral persuasion
EXAM TIP: Be prepared to discuss if/when the shopkeeper crossed the line between acceptable moral persuasion and unacceptable duress.
Proximate Cause
Tests
Common Issues
Proximate cause is a policy-laden determination applied by courts to draw lines beyond which liability should not extend based upon logic, fairness, common sense, and the public interest.
Tests
Directly traceable test (the minority test),
Nothing occurs between the act and the injury
If nothing intervenes and supersedes, the defendant is responsible
Ideal test, very forgiving
Reasonable foreseeability test (the majority test), and
What MUST be foreseeable is the class of harms that the negligence makes foreseeable
You don’t have to foresee the wacky events that lead to the harm.
Restatement Test / Harm matches the Foul [Caputzal water softener]
Common Issues
Intervening and Superseding Causes
Eggshell Plaintiff
Rescuer Doctrine
Facts:
Oliver owns a large rural property where he has posted “No Trespassing” signs along the perimeter. His neighbor, Brooke, is training a drone for aerial photography and regularly flies it over Oliver’s land to capture scenic shots. The drone occasionally hovers 20 feet above Oliver’s backyard for several minutes, taking photos of his garden and swimming pool. Oliver demands that Brooke stop, arguing the drone is invading his property. Brooke insists that since the drone doesn’t “touch” the land, it isn’t trespassing. Oliver sues for trespass to land.
Issue:
Has Brooke committed trespass to land by flying a drone over Oliver’s property?
Application:
Brooke intentionally flew her drone over Oliver’s backyard, knowingly entering the airspace directly above his property. Although the drone did not physically touch the ground, its low hovering interfered with Oliver’s exclusive possession and enjoyment. Because the drone entered the airspace within the “immediate reaches” of Oliver’s land (20 feet above ground), this constitutes a physical invasion. Brooke’s argument that “no touching” occurred fails because trespass includes non-tangible invasions that occupy space within the owner’s control.
Conclusion:
Brooke committed trespass to land by intentionally flying her drone within the protected airspace above Oliver’s property.
Single v. Dual intent and when it applies
Single → D must intend the action
Dual → D must intend action AND that it is harmful or offensive
Applies to assault and battery
Define Trespass to Chattel and Conversion
Chattel
1) Intent
2) Interference with Plaintiff's right of possession
Can’t be intermeddling or dispossession, exercise of dominion/control must be so severe it justifies damages for the full value of the chattel
3) Causation
4) Damages
Actual damages to the chattel
Conversion
1) Intent
2) Exercised dominion and control over the chattel
Can't be intermeddling or dispossession, exercise of dominion/control must be so severe it justifies damages for the full value of the chattel
3) Causation
4) Damages
Defenses
Self defense
Defense of Property
Recovery of Property and its limitations
Self-defense: “Reasonable force” to defend against a threatened battery
Requires reasonable belief that force is necessary for protection
- Does not extend to retaliation
- Defendant must prove the force used was reasonable
- Deadly force is permitted when a reasonable apprehension of loss of life or GBH or 3am dark home trespass
Defense of others: Use of “reasonable force” to defend third persons
Defense of property: Allows for reasonable force to prevent a tort from being committed against property.
- Deadly force only justified when the trespasser was committing a violent felony, a felony punishable by death, or where trespass was endangered human life.
Recovery of property: A person is allowed to use reasonable force to recover one’s property
- Recovery of Property as a defense to Trespass to Land
- Trespassing to recover your rightful property is permitted if done in a reasonable manner
Issues with the Limitations of Recovery of Property
- Fresh/hot pursuit: how much time has elapsed since dispossession?
- Demand for return: a prerequisite to use of force unless demand is clearly futile
- Reasonable force
Facts:
Jamie is walking through a grocery store when an employee mops the floor near the produce section. The employee leaves the floor wet but forgets to place a “Wet Floor” sign. Moments later, Jamie slips on the wet spot and falls, breaking their wrist. The employee says they were “about to put the sign down” when Jamie fell.
Issue:
Is the grocery store liable for negligence for Jamie’s injury?
Rule:
Negligence occurs when a defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff, breaches that duty, and the breach actually and proximately causes damages. A store owes invitees a duty to use reasonable care to maintain the premises in a safe condition and to warn of known or foreseeable hazards.
Application:
The store owed Jamie, a business invitee, a duty to keep the premises reasonably safe. By leaving a wet floor without warning, the employee created a foreseeable risk of harm and failed to take reasonable precautions (posting a warning sign). This is a breach of duty. The fall was directly caused by the wet floor, satisfying actual causation, and it was foreseeable that someone could slip on an unmarked wet surface (proximate causation). Jamie suffered a broken wrist, establishing damages.
Conclusion:
The grocery store is liable for negligence because it breached its duty to maintain safe premises, and that breach caused Jamie’s injury.
Facts:
Renee and her coworker, Blake, both apply for a promotion. When Blake gets the job, Renee begins spreading personal rumors around the office, claiming Blake only got promoted by sleeping with the boss. She also creates a fake social media profile impersonating Blake and posts embarrassing comments about coworkers. Over several weeks, Blake becomes increasingly distressed, has trouble sleeping, and is eventually hospitalized for panic attacks. When confronted, Renee laughs and says, “It was just a joke — everyone needs to calm down.”
Issue:
Has Renee committed intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against Blake?
Renee intentionally targeted Blake with false, humiliating rumors and impersonation. Her actions were not isolated — they were sustained and malicious, aimed at harming Blake’s reputation and emotional stability. Such workplace humiliation and online defamation likely exceed all bounds of decency. Renee’s laughter and claim that it was “just a joke” show reckless disregard for Blake’s well-being. Blake’s hospitalization and severe anxiety establish the required severe emotional distress.
Conclusion:
Renee is liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress.