Tort: wrongful act done to someone for which there is compensation; determines who bears cost of losses. Tort law compensates for injury; put in place were before tort.
I. DIRECT INTENTIONAL WRONGS
BATTERY
1. Majority (dual intent):
a. intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact,
i. Act w/ Purpose of causing harmful/offensive contact OR Knowledge that is substantially certain to occur (95% sure)
ii. and intend harmful or offensive contact
b. and when a harmful or offensive contact occurs.
2. Minority: Only intent to contact reqdà P/k to cause contact that later turns out to be harmful. (only use this test when the situation calls for it)
3. (Obj test): intent of causing contact that a reasonable person would find offensive or harmful. (adds an obj test to a subjective one)
4. Italian on bus hypo riding a bus and get pinched by an Italian, who thinks this a compliment and its not offensive. You are grossly offended can you sue him for battery.
a. Gen rule: cannot sue him b/c there was no purpose or knowledge to cause offensive contact.
b. But under the 2nd rule, you could sue him b/c it’s contact that later turns out to be offensive.
c. Obj: it’s one thing to hold an American liable, but what about the foreigner who has different cultural experiences.
5. Bodily integrity- protect against harmful; Bodily autonomy- against offensive
Fault (intent is form of fault): Van Camp v. McAfoos Supr Court of IA, 1968
3yr old Mark rides trycicle on sidewalk, runs into back of leg, injures plt, she needs surgery. Trial court says: no allegation of negligence, willful/wrongful actions. Burden of proof: on plt to reduce litigation. Only blameworthy if commit what fault is
Fault: dft acted intentionally or negligently (unreasonable)
Rule: P must allege fault (acted intentionally or negligently) in order to recover in tort for these injuries; no facts alleged that would support a finding of fault. D wins.
Harmful or offensive to bodily integrity and autonomy: Snyder v. Turk Ohio, 1993
Dft is surgeon doing gall bladder op; bad op; frustrated w/ scrub nurse. She gives him instrument he doesn’t like, grabs her, forces her near surgical opening, tells her what he needs. Prima facie case for battery (elements plt must prove to recover): Subject to liability for battery when he acts
1. intending to cause a harmful or offensive contactà Rule: reasonable minds could conclude Turk intended to commit offensive contact; offensive to reasonable sense of personal dignity (doesn’t have to be PI).
2. and when a harmful or offensive contact occurs.
Don’t have to touch actually; can send poison through mail, shoot someone.
Offensive: offend reasonable sense of personal dignity Cohen v. Smith IL, 1995
Patricia having baby, needs c-section. Allegedly tell hospital staff that religious beliefs prohibit seen unclothed by male. Assured would be respected. Allegedly male nurse observes and touches Cohen’s body during operation. Suit filed against nurse, hospital. IntentàHarmful/offensive contact (religious belief conveyed to dft). Assume acting for best of medical reasons, but made clear didn’t want to be touched. Battery protects from PI and individual autonomy over body.
Contact: must be physical in nature; sound waves no b/c courts want phs req
Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications, Inc. Court of App, OH 1994
L is antismoking advocate; goes on radio show on day of smokeout. Host, lit cigar, repeatedly blew smoke in L’s face. Battery is smoke blowing in his face, inhales it. Court finds sufficient contact. Cunningham (simply in room)àaccomplice if helps tort along. Radio comp: employer’s liability, no b/c was int tort that doesn’t facilitate/ promote its business (quasi accurate).
Intent: Garratt v. Dailey Supr Court of WA 1955 5 yr old Brian visiting Naomi Garratt, plt Ruth’s sister. Don’t accept Naomi’s testimony that he pulled chair deliberately; accept Brian’s: Ruth comes into backyard; Brian picks up canvas chair; moves it sideways, sits in it; Ruth goes to sit where chair was, Brian quickly tries to put it back, but can’t. Plt fell to ground, fractured hip and other injuries. Ruth’s version: starts to sit down, Brian pulls chair away from her.
Meaning of intent: applies to all intentional torts. Restatement def of intent:
1. Act w/ Purpose of causing harmful/intentional contact OR
2. Knowledge that is substantially certain to occur
Infer from facts. Age: 5yr old act w/ purpose; also, to some degree can act w/ knowledge. Age affects intent based on how developed child is.
Court’s order: did he have knowledge that she was going to sit down, that harmful/off contact substantially certain to occur. Wrong issue: if knows she will sit down, may still be lacking requisite intent. Also, didn’t have to see R start to sit before moved chairàshe could say “I think I’ll sit down.” If he did start to see her sit down, maybe doesn’t have knowledge that contact substantially certain to occur. More likely has intent if she starts to sit down. Affect of age on intentàGen rule: child needs intent; ability varies w/ child
Mistake v. Transferred intent
1. Mistake: Intend action on person; gets object intended to strike, but mistaken about what it was. Effect lies upon dft. Mistake: Mortal enemy walks down street. Enraged at enemy (Barnum). Run up, tackle from behind, tackle to ground. Isn’t Barnum, is Bailey the lawyer! Bailey sues for battery. Liable for battery? Yes. Here, not like White. Tackle person aim to tackle, just made mistake. Have intent to hurt Bailey.
2. Transferred intent: Mistake is not as to what were aiming at, but as to intent. Intending to comit tort against A, comit tort against B, transfer intent to allow complete tort against B.
3. In both, dft has culpable state of mind. Not socially useful, intend to injure. Don’t care if outcome unforeseeable. If have intent, treated harshly by law.
4. Extended consequences: Requisite elements of int torts, liable for ext cons.
Transferred intent: Transferred intent is subset of doctrine of extended consequence; unforeseen event liable for. No social utility of int tort.
Davis v. White Va 1982 White shoots at Tipton on motorcycle; misses, hits Davis in the stomach. White fled scene. If have requisite intent directed at A, end up hitting B, transfer intent from A, transfer to B. Don’t have to know B is there.
Old case: sees kids playing on barn, throws at kid on roof. Misses kid on roof, hits someone on other side of barn (didn’t know guy was there). Use battery intent directed at A, transfer so B can use, harmful contact w/ B.
Insane can have tortious intent: Polmatier v. Russ CT 1988 Facts: Russ shoots and kills Polamatier. Found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. Had requisite intent (of Garratt) b/c had purpose to cause harmful contact. Although has intent b/c is mentally ill, law doesn’t care why, as long as have it. Rule: insane people still liable for their torts.
DuPree: need voluntary act. A has epilepsy, suffers from catalytic state, unconscious of acts, in state strikes B, standing over him, no volitional act.
Must have purp/knowl to cause harmful contact and intend harmful or offensive contact White v Muniz CO 2000 W puts grandm in facility. MàEverly hits her in jaw. Everly has progressive dementia, degenerative of Alzheimer type. Last sentence of jury instruction: Can still act w/ intent if demented; if intended to do what did, even if reasons irrational, acted intentionally. But, must have appreciated offensiveness of conduct. Not enough intended to strike nurse, must show also that had purpose to cause harmful/offensive contact. Dual intent: Must have purpose or knowledge to cause harmful contact and intend harmful or offensive contact
Assault : An act by D that puts the P in apprehension of an imminent bodily touching that would be harmful or offensive
1. Intent (purpose to cause harmful contact)
2. Apprehension of harmful or offensive contact: Protect mental interest (protects mental tranquility). Apprehension is enough, don’t need fear; but,
3. contact threatened has to be imminent (If is future, intentional infliction emotional distress)
a. Dickens v. Puryear NC, 1981 Dfts lured plt intor rural area; point pistol at him; beat him; threaten w/ castration; handcuff; discuss whether should be killed or castrated; 2 hrs of beatings; tells him to go home and pack up or be killed. Telling to go home and pack up is not assault b/c is not imminent threat
4. Mere words not enough: some sort of act req’d.
Every battery does not include assaultàSleeping Beauty; wakes up, is repulsed. Can’t sue for assault b/c was no apprehension of offensive contact. Also, if swing and miss, only assault. Assault and battery: yell at student,
5. Words as negating intent: Graying Prof hypo: if it weren’t for your gray hair I would thrash you. Have apprehension that might hit you. Is saying WILL not hit, no intent. Male shakes finger in female face says would whip her ass anytime anywhere. Court thought it was jury question if was imminent.
6. Apparent ability: dft comes in, points gun at bank, hand over money. Capture 20 mins later, gun was unloaded. Assault? Yes, b/c had intent to cause apprehension, was imminent. If clear to all in building is toy gun, is clear does not have apparent ability to cause apprehension.
7. Improper conditional threat: Give me all your money now, if you give me your money, you will be fine. Still assault b/c had intent and apprehension; words do not negate the intent. Protect mental tranq, shouldn’t have to choose b/w life and $.
8. Transfer intent: Alteiri v. Colasso CT 1975 Richard playing in backyard; dft threw rock, into yard struck Richard in eye and as result suffered injuries. Intent to scare person other than plt: transfe intent of one tort to another and diff plaintiff. Use intent of assault to complete battery. Fulfill elements of int torts for plt when dft didn’t even know plt was around. Take one kind of intent to complete another tort b/c have culpable dft.
a. Hypo: Prof throws water bottle at Greg (ducks), hits someone sound asleep. Had intent to hit Greg, contact actualàhas committed battery on Anahita. If had gone over Anahita’s ear. Intent to assault Greg, but use transferred intent to Anahita for assault.
b. Prosser’s Rule: Limiting Transferred Intent: only foràassault, battery, falsi imp, trespass on land, trespass to chattels. Can’t use for intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion.
9. Doctrine of Extended Consequences: Throw book at Greg, think can’t hurt him, hits Greg’s nose, as result Greg’s nose turns inward. Committed battery, liable for all consequences. If tort complete, liable for all conseq, no matter how unforeseeable.
False Imprisonment (protects freedom to move around.
1. Intent (pur/know)
2. Actual confinement
3. Knowledge of confinement
4. Against Ps will (speaks to consent)
McCann v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 1st Circuit, 2000. McC and 2 kids (16 girl, 12 boy) shop at WalMart. As leaving, two W employees block their exit (one may have put hand on cart). Tell McCs not allowed in store b/c caught stealing before (mistaken, wrong family). McC protets; they say have records, police being called, Mc has to go with them. Did not resist b/c thought she had to, police coming. Take them near store exit. Employee stands near Mcs while employee H purportedly goes to call police. McC tries to show T id, T refuses. Call sec officer who says are wrong people. Leave after 1 hr.
Single most important fact: Imprisoned for about an hour, but got about $20G. Have employee w/ family at all times, shows supervised, can’t leave; path gets blocked. No actual physical restraint req’d; mere threat of phys force or claim of lawful authority for confinement
Hypos
1. Western movie: detective goes to interview suspect, says don’t leave town.
a. Actual confinementà Freedom to leave town is infringement if need to leave town. Don’t leave state: Area has to be smaller.
2. Lack of access is not false imprisonment.
3. Duress of good: Legal writing due, must turn in at noon. During am, someone takes paper, D won’t give it back, walks out. P follows him, D won’t give back, then gives back. P can sue D for f impris; confinement was area near paper. To get property back, in essence confined.
4. Need VOLUNTARY ACT. If never made promise, no duty. Fighting neighbors: coming home, walk by front, hear HELP!, go to house, I’m locked in, my wife has blocked me in, huge couch opens outward, can’t move. You can’t get in, and can move couch, but decide not to help. Guy stuck all night, catches pneumonia, goes to hospital, they reconcile.
5. If there are reasonable means of escape, not imprisoned. Blocked door: dft really mad at plt, blocks only door very effectively, but is window. Apt on first floor. Intent to confine. Act confinement: window maybe unreas.
6. Prove knowledge of confinementàShow evid tried to get out, what reaction was. Nice police officer: drunk Memorial Day weekend, police get call, find 2 guys in alley, instead of arresting take to abandoned golf course outside of town, let them go. Action for false imprisonment, but don’t rem being in car.