Name! That! Tort!
A defendant intentionally makes harmful or offensive contact with another person.
What is battery?
Name the two general ways a person can have intent under the classic intentional-tort formulation.
(1) Purpose to cause the consequence, OR (2) knowledge that the consequence is substantially certain to occur.
A person voluntarily agrees to participate in a contact sport and accepts contacts that fall within the legally recognized scope of that agreement.
What is consent?
Without permission, you intentionally walk onto land possessed by another person. What tort may this be?
What is trespass to land?
Alex swings at Jordan intending to hit Jordan, but misses. Jordan sees the swing coming and reasonably anticipates being struck immediately. What tort is the strongest fit?
Assault. No contact is necessary.
A defendant intentionally causes another person to reasonably anticipate imminent harmful or offensive contact, but no contact has to occur.
What is assault?
For false imprisonment, name the additional requirement beyond intentional confinement that concerns the plaintiff's experience of it.
The plaintiff must be conscious of the confinement or suffer harm from it.
Someone reasonably believes another person is about to punch them and uses reasonably necessary force to protect themselves.
What is self-defense?
You intentionally borrow a friend's laptop, but your interference is minor and does not rise to the level of conversion. If the required harm or impairment is present, what tort may apply?
What is trespass to chattels?
Taylor secretly locks Morgan in an office. Morgan does not realize they are trapped and suffers no resulting harm. Which element of false imprisonment is potentially missing?
Awareness of confinement or resulting harm.
A store employee intentionally blocks a shopper from leaving a room, and the shopper is aware that they cannot leave.
What is false imprisonment?
What distinguishes trespass to chattels from conversion in terms of the seriousness of interference?
Conversion involves interference serious enough to justify requiring payment of the item's full value; trespass to chattels generally involves lesser interference plus legally sufficient harm or impairment.
A store has reasonable grounds to suspect a customer stole merchandise. It briefly detains the customer in a reasonable manner to investigate.
What is the shopkeeper's privilege?
A person mistakenly believes a yard belongs to them but intentionally walks onto it. Does the ownership mistake automatically defeat trespass to land?
No. A mistake about ownership generally does not excuse an intentional entry onto land possessed by another.
Casey intentionally bumps into Riley in a crowded hallway, but the contact is accidental in the legally relevant sense. Does the fact that contact occurred automatically establish battery?
No. The required intent must be established; contact alone is not enough.
Someone deliberately takes control of another person's expensive painting and refuses to return it, interfering with the owner's rights so seriously that full-value damages may be appropriate.
What is conversion?
Name the four commonly taught elements of IIED.
Extreme and outrageous conduct; intent or recklessness; causation; severe emotional distress.
A homeowner uses force to stop a trespasser from entering their yard. What limitation applies to the force used to protect property?
The force must be reasonable under the applicable rule; deadly force generally cannot be used solely to protect property.
A person intentionally moves someone else's phone a few inches and returns it immediately, causing no damage or meaningful deprivation. Why might conversion be a poor fit?
Conversion requires sufficiently serious interference with the owner's property rights; trivial interference ordinarily is not enough.
A store suspects theft but detains a customer for hours without a reasonable investigative purpose. Which defense is the store most likely to invoke, and what is the problem?
Shopkeeper's privilege; the duration and/or manner may be unreasonable, so the privilege may not apply.
A defendant's extreme and outrageous conduct, accompanied by the required intent or recklessness, causes another person severe emotional distress.
What is intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)?
In negligence, what are the two questions addressed by the topics of duty and breach?
Whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty of care, and whether the defendant failed to meet the applicable standard of care.
A person breaks a neighbor's window to escape a fire. Under private necessity, is the entry necessarily wrongful, and must the person pay for the property damage?
Private necessity may privilege the entry, but the person generally remains liable for actual property damage.
A person enters private property to protect a large group from an imminent disaster. What type of necessity may apply, and how does it generally differ from private necessity?
Public necessity; when its requirements are satisfied, it is generally a complete privilege, unlike private necessity, which generally does not eliminate liability for actual property damage.
A defendant intentionally performs an act, but the harmful consequence is neither their purpose nor something they know is substantially certain to result. Why might the classic intent test not be satisfied?
Voluntarily performing an act is not necessarily the same as having the required intent regarding the consequence.