keywords:
Bookmark and Share



Front Back
Battery
the intentional infliction of harmful or offensive contact
Battery Test
Test: 
o 1. Intent - specific or general
o 2. Harmful or Offensive Contact
• judged by reasonable person````Assault
Assault
An unlawful or intentional action in a rude or angry manner such to create subjectively in mind of defendant a well-founded fear of an imminent battery couple with the apparent present ability to do so.
Purpose: designed to police against the creation of the mind of plaintiff the violation of his/her person
• Key Definition: Apprehension - an awareness that an action is, or could be reasonably imminent.
Assault Test
Test:
o 1. Intent (specific/general) - to cause an apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact
o 2. Plaintiff experiences a well-founded belief of apprehension
• Fear(not determinative), Awareness
o 3. Defendant has apparent ability to carry out the apprehension
• subjectively judged
• (tort is "completed" at moment of apprehension)
Intent
measured subjectively. Evidentiary support is objective.
• a. Specific intent - acting willfully, with purpose or design.
• b. General intent - acting with knowledge to a substantial certainty
o [Garret v. Dailey]
• c. Mistake - not a defense
o [Ranson v. Kitner]
• d. Insanity - no defense
o [McGuire v. Almy]
• e. Minors - can be liable; usually at age 5
Transferred Intent
1. Intention tort is set in motion (A, B, FI, TL, TC)
2. Incomplete action toward intended target
3. Resulting in an intentional tort to another
Battery: Considerations
o Crowded world; some contact is inevitable - [Wallace v. Rosen]
o Extended liability for unforeseen injuries to the reasonable person from intentional harmful/offs contact - (classical) [Cole v. Turner]
o No intentional tort liability for unforeseen injuries in the eyes of reasonable people. - (modern) [Spivey v. Battaglia]
o Objects can become extensions of ones body, not only person on person contact. - [Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel]
o Awareness - plaintiff need not be aware of harmful contact. (i.e. if under anesthetic)
Respondent Superior
doctrine which holds employers responsible for the intentional conduct of their employees when the employee is acting within the scope of their employment. - [Western Union Telegraph].
Assault: considerations
Words alone are not enough

Words coupled with actions: yes
Words threatening illegal actions: yes. "give me your wallet or I will kill you."
False Imprisonment
An act with intent to unlawfully restrain/confine another to a fixed area with no reasonable means of escape. (no legal justification).
• Purpose: A dignitary tort designed to protect/prevent a person dignity and freedom of movement.
False Imprisonment Test
1. Intent (specific / general) to unlawfully restain someone against their will
  • No consent
  • No legal justification
2. Confined to a fixed / bounded area
3. No reasonable means of escape
4. Plaintiff must be aware of confinement at occurrence.
False Imprisonment Considerations
  • [Big Town Nursing Home]- homerun case for FI.
  • Awareness - [Parvi v. City of Kingston]
  • Remaining someone to clear your name, not FI [Hardy v. LaBelle] 
  • Unlawful arrest is FI [Enright v. Groves]
  •  Denial of reasonable means of escape (boat) is FI. [Whittaker v. Sandford]
  • Retaining personal property may amount to FI.
  • Denial of entry is not FI.

If injured during escape, when safer to remain imprisoned, (no liability, or not FI????)
IIED
The recognition of a right to be free from serious, intentional and unprivileged invasion of mental and emotional tranquility
IIED Test
1. Intentional (spec/gen) or reckless conduct
  • Reckless: acting in total disregad for other's rights.
2.  Extreme & Outrageous conduct
  • Going beyond the bounds of conduct tolerated by society
3. Must be causal connection between wrongful conduct and emotional distress
4. (P) experiences severe empotional distress.
  • Judged by a reasonable person. 
IIED: considerations
  •  Conduct tolerated by society is always changing. - [Slocum v. Food Stores of Florida]
  • If IIED causes physical harm, for sure IIED.-[State Rubbish v. Siliznoff]
  • Must be proven causal connection between act and harm (stuttering) - [Harris v. Jones]
  • 3rd party IIED Claims: (1) Defendant must have knowledge/intent plaintiff will be harmed. (2) P is present/witness (daughter saw father beat) - [Taylor v. Vallelunga].
  • This tort relaxes requirement of intent (allows for reckless).
  • "Transferred intent" not applicable.
Trespass to Land
An unauthorized entry of a person or thing on land in the posssession of another.
  • Protected Interests: Designed to protect the exclusive possession of land 
Trespass to Land Test
1. Intentional (Gen/Specific) or Unlawful physical entry upin land of another.
Trespass to Land: considerations
  •  Mistake of fact is not a defense
  • Damages are presumed. - [Dougherty v. Stepp]
  • Liability is extended to those who force others to enter.
  • Invisible Trespass: particle matter; requires actual damages. - [Bradley v. American Smelting]
  • Landowners hold a right to space in the reasonable reaches of the land. (shooting gun over prop.) -[Herrin v. Sutherland]
Continuing Trespass
  • Once an invitation to use land expires, you are a trespasser.
  • (snow-fence posts on land for city) - [Rogers v. Board of Commish]
Spacial Regulations
  • Congested area: 1,000 ft above highest obstacle. 2,000ft Horizontal 
  • Non-congested: 500ft above surface (not water, light population)
Conversion
The intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel, which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the action may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel (Court Enforced Sale)
  • Protected Interest: Possession, control, or rights to control the owner of chattels 
Conversion Test
1. The intentional exercise of dominion or control
2. To the chattel of another
3. The intentional act of results in a serious interference with the possessory right of the owner.
Conversion: considerations
Remedy: Forced Sale:
• Plaintiff is entitled to the fair market value of the chattel at the time conversion occurred.
• If one wishes to retain chattel, don't sue under conversion.
• If forced sale, title passes to new owner.
o Duration of control, interferes with owners use.
o Whether harm done to chattel, such that no use to return to owner. (but no actual damage is required)
o Perhaps the good faith of the person who interferes.
o Mistake of fact is no defense.
o "Transferred intent" is not applicable.
o Making copies of document w/o dispossession, not conversion. (unless docs contain IP or business plans) -[Pearson v. Dodd]
x of y cards