Elements (Intentional Torts)
Name elements of assault and how many are required to prove a case
All 4 Required
1. intent to cause harmful contact/offensive contact OR imminent apprehension of such contact
2. actual content is incomplete (for any reason including intervening cause)
3. defendant has apparent ability to carry out threat
4. plaintiff experiences imminent apprehension (words alone not enough, must be conduct creating imminent apprehension)
Derek, furious at Sam, throws a punch at Sam's face. Sam ducks and the punch misses entirely, but Sam is badly shaken and freezes in fear for several seconds before Derek storms off. Sam sues Derek. Which intentional tort has Sam most likely established?
Battery, because Derek intended to cause harmful contact
False imprisonment, because Sam froze and couldn't move
IIED, because Derek's conduct was extreme and outrageous
No tort, because no contact actually occurred
Assault, because Derek intended contact or apprehension of it, the contact failed, Derek had the apparent ability to hit Sam, and Sam was put in imminent apprehension
Assault, because Derek intended contact or apprehension of it, the contact failed, Derek had the apparent ability to hit Sam, and Sam was put in imminent apprehension
Double jeopardy
What is an objective test & what is a subjective test
Describe substantial certainty
objective test follows reasonable person standard
subjective test follows whether a specific actor act with reasonable certainty and have the requisite intent
Substantial certainty: more than mere possibility or probability - defendant must be aware with substantial certainty that conduct will bring about harm/consequences
What are the 3 elements of self defense
1. Reasonable Force as to the apparent necessity of using force (subjective test)
2. Reasonable use of force is permissible (proportionality to harm threatened)
3. Retaliation is forbidden (can't use force after threat has been removed)
an unforeseeable pre-existing frailty of the plaintiff is not a defense; the defendant takes the plaintiff as he finds him and is liable for the full extent of the resulting harm, even if unexpectedly severe (Vosburg v. Putney)
Name elements of battery and how many are required
all 3 required
1. intent to cause contact (or imminent harm + apprehension)
2. contact occurs and is harmful or offensive (can also be extension of the person)
3. bodily harm or offense actually results (no actual injury required, offense alone is sufficient)
A store security guard, reasonably believing (but incorrectly) that a customer just shoplifted, detains her in the manager's office for 15 minutes while store staff review camera footage, then apologizes and releases her when the footage shows nothing. The customer sues for false imprisonment. Under the storeowner's privilege (Bonkowski), the store's best argument is:
There is no confinement because she was in a public store, not a locked room
The privilege doesn't apply because the customer turned out to be innocent
There can be no false imprisonment because the detention lasted only 15 minutes
The privilege applies because the guard reasonably believed a theft occurred, and the detention/questioning was for a reasonable time and purpose — a reasonable mistake as to guilt is allowed
The privilege applies because the guard reasonably believed a theft occurred, and the detention/questioning was for a reasonable time and purpose — a reasonable mistake as to guilt is allowed
Describe Specific vs. General Intent
Specific intent: defendants conscious purpose or desire to bring about result (if there is specific intent, no need to show substantial certainty)
General intent: no need to show malice, intent to injure, or bad motive - only a volitional act performed with knowledge that harmful/offensive result is substantially certain to occur
What are the 4 elements of Storeowners' Privileges
1. Reasonable belief of a unlawful taking of property (theft)
2. Detention and questioning must be done in a reasonable manner and for reasonable time
3. Summoning appropriate authorities for additional questioning and full investigation where necessary
4. Reasonable mistake is allowed
True or False & Why: The threat of not being able to leave work out of fear you will lose your job if you do constitutes false imprisonment
False
Moral persuasion is not false imprisonment: staying because of a felt personal/social obligation (e.g., fear of losing one’s job) does not constitute duress sufficient for confinement – everyone gives up some freedom in everyday life (e.g., workplace drug testing).
Name elements of False Imprisonment and how many are required to prove a case
All 4 required
1. defendant intended to confine plaintiff
2. plaintiff was conscious of confinement (or harmed by it)
3. plaintiff did not consent to confinement
4. confinement was not otherwise privileged
Nadia asks a tattoo artist to ink a small star on her wrist. While she's under (mild sedation for pain), the artist also adds a matching star on her ankle, thinking she'd love the set. Nadia is upset when she wakes up and sees the second tattoo. Under a battery/consent analysis, the ankle tattoo is:
A battery only if the ankle tattoo caused her physical pain beyond what the wrist tattoo caused
A battery, because her consent to the wrist tattoo did not extend to the ankle tattoo — the artist exceeded the scope of consent given
Not a battery, because tattoos are inherently offensive and she assumed that risk by getting one at all
Not a battery, because the artist's motive was to please her, not to harm her
A battery, because her consent to the wrist tattoo did not extend to the ankle tattoo — the artist exceeded the scope of consent given
Two types of transferred intent
As to person: A intends to harm B but hits C instead – who is A liable to?
As to tort: A intends to commit tort X against B but actually commits tort Y against B (or a third person) - What tort is A liable for?
A is liable to C
A is liable for Tort Y
Consent under Mistake, Misrepresentation, or Duress
Explain what happens if consent is induced by fraud or a substantial mistake
Consent induced by fraud as to the misrepresentation as to a collateral matter, rather than fraud as to the essential character of the act itself, will not invalidate consent
A substantial mistake cannot be a mistake; it would be fraud
What are the factors of extreme and outrageous conduct for IIED
Frequency: a one-off incident is less likely to qualify; a prolonged pattern is easier to find outrageous
Asymmetrical relations of power – e.g., employer/employee, teacher, student – abuse of power over a weaker party
Knowledge of a special vulnerability that the defendant exploits
Elements of Trespass (Section 158 + further elements from class)
one is subject to liability for trespass irrespective of causing harm if he intentionally
1. enters land in possession of other or causes a third person to do so or,
2. remains on land or,
3. fails to remove land from a thing which he is under duty to remove
Further elements
1. intent to step on land
2. does not have consent of possessor
3. must be physical or tangible invasion
During a heated but non-physical shouting match, Priya suddenly grabs a beer bottle and takes a single threatening step toward Tomas while yelling that she'll 'smash it over his head.' Tomas immediately punches Priya in the face, breaking her nose, then walks away — there was no further advance from Priya. Priya sues Tomas for battery; Tomas claims self-defense. How should this most likely come out?
Self-defense succeeds because verbal threats alone are always sufficient to justify striking first
Self-defense likely fails or is limited, because a punch causing a broken nose (nondeadly-but-significant force) may be disproportionate to a single step with a bottle and a verbal threat, especially once weighed under necessity/proportionality
Self-defense succeeds fully, because Priya provoked the confrontation by threatening him first
Self-defense fails because Tomas's belief that he was threatened must be shown to be certain, not merely reasonable
Self-defense automatically fails because Tomas had a duty to retreat before using any force
Self-defense likely fails or is limited, because a punch causing a broken nose (nondeadly-but-significant force) may be disproportionate to a single step with a bottle and a verbal threat, especially once weighed under necessity/proportionality
In Garret v. Dailey, what "test" did the court use to determine whether Brian Dailey committed an intentional tort
Was Brain Dailey's act one of specific or general intent
Subjective test
Substantial certainty - judging subjectively by what the defendant knew, not the average person
General intent: volitional act (moving chair) performed with substantial certainty that the result (harmful or offensive bodily contact) will occur
Name and describe the three types of consent
Actual consent: a persons' subjective willingness to permit the otherwise tortious conduct of an actor
Apparent consent: conduct, including words that are reasonably understood by another as a reflection of consent
Presumed consent exists if:
(1) the actor is justified under prevailing social norms, in engaging in the conduct, and
(2) the actor has no reason to believe that the person would not have actually consented to the conduct if the actor had requested the person's consent
Public necessity - D (is or is not) liable for this action
Private necessity - D (is or is not) liable for _____
is not
is liable for damages
Name elements of IIED and how many are required to prove a case
all 4 required
1. conduct must be extreme + outrageous
2. intent - may be intentional or recklessness
3. causal connection between conduct and emotional distress
4. emotional distress/harm must be severe
A delivery driver, believing in good faith that a package left unattended on a porch has been abandoned, picks it up and takes it home for his own use. It turns out the homeowner had simply stepped inside for a minute and never abandoned it. The homeowner sues for conversion. The driver's best defense is:
He has no real defense — like Ranson v. Kitner, a reasonable good-faith mistake does not excuse an intentional exercise of dominion inconsistent with the true owner's rights
He has a full defense under the recovery-of-property privilege
He can't be liable for conversion, only trespass to chattels, because he intended no permanent harm
He can't be liable because he made a reasonable, good-faith mistake about the package being abandoned
He has no real defense — like Ranson v. Kitner, a reasonable good-faith mistake does not excuse an intentional exercise of dominion inconsistent with the true owner's rights
Need to get all 5 to get points
1. Does transferred intent apply to the intentional tort of IIED
2. True or False: A reasonable, good faith mistake negates intent
3. True or False: Mental Illness/Disability negates intent
4. True or False: If specific intent is shown, no separate showing of substantial certainty is needed
5. True or False: Battery requires the INTENT to cause harmful/offensive contact
1. No - only battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land & chattels
2. False - mistake is not a defense to an intentional tort
3. False - does not by itself negate intent, an insane or disabled person can still form requisite intent if he is capable of it and entertains it
4. True
5. False - battery requires only that (1) the contact be deliberate/volitional, and (2) the contact be harmful or offensive at law – the actor need NOT intend the contact to be harmful or offensive
What is public necessity - what is the difference between public and private necessity
Public necessity: Privileged entry by a public official where: under apparent reasonable necessity; use of reasonable means; infringement upon property rights; while seeking to protect public good or public interest; emergency is great enough to justify the action
Private necessity: privileged entry by a private individual - same elements other than - while seeking to protect a private interest
Maya leaves a restaurant and accidentally takes Daniel's hat from the rack, believing it is her own. Once she reaches the sidewalk, Maya puts on the hat and realizes her mistake. She immediately returns to the restaurant and puts the hat back on the rack. Conversion or not?
Maya leaves a restaurant and accidentally takes Daniel's hat from the rack, believing it is her own. She does not realize her mistake until three months later, when she discovers that she has been wearing Daniel's hat. She returns it to the restaurant. Conversion or not?
Maya leaves a restaurant and accidentally takes Daniel's hat from the rack, believing it is her own. Once she reaches the sidewalk, Maya puts on the hat. A sudden gust of wind blows the hat from her head, and it falls through an open manhole, where it is lost. Conversion or not?
Maya leaves a restaurant and takes Daniel's hat from the rack, intending to steal it. As she approaches the door, she sees a police offer outside. Maya immediately returns the hat to the rack. Conversion or not?
1. not conversion (mistaken taking, immediate return)
2. conversion (mistaken taking; prolonged possession)
3. Conversion (mistaken taking; accidental loss)
4. conversion (intentional taking; return to avoid detection)