Torts-Intentional

Card Set Information

Author:
hayleyrayscott
ID:
289978
Filename:
Torts-Intentional
Updated:
2014-11-24 18:46:10
Tags:
Torts
Folders:
Torts
Description:
Intentional Torts
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview

The flashcards below were created by user hayleyrayscott on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?


  1. Intent: General (4)
    • 1) Inherently subjective
    • 2) RST on intent: 1) Specific intent: Actor's PURPOSE in acting is to bring about the consequences 2) General intent: Knowledge with SUBSTANTIAL CERTAINTY that the consequences will result 
    • 3) Volition act
    • 4) Assumes capacity to form intent
  2. Intent: Application
    • 1) Do not need to intend exact results
    • 2) Not the same as malice or evil mind
    • 3) Not excused by good faith or joking
    • 4) Not excused if you make a mistake 
    • 5) Do not need to show motive
    • 6) Presumed to intend the natural and probably consequences of our actions 
    • 7) Do not need to intend the exact manner, means, or extent of harm
  3. Intent: Problem
    How to objectively prove something that is inherently subjective (must draw inferences from conduct, standards)
  4. Transferred Intent:
    • If one intends to commit a tort and something else happens to another person, you are still liable.
    • Assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land and chattels
  5. Intent problem areas: (4)
    • Minors and mental infirmity: still liable for intentional torts because ...
    • 1) Goal is compensation, not judging fault or moral blame
    • 2) B/t two innocent parties, the loss falls on the responsible party (justified b/c insurance usually pays)
    • 3) Increases diligence on the part of the caregiver
    • 4) Suspicious about faking, difficulty of line drawing
  6. Why does intent matter?
    • 1) SOL
    • 2) Government immunity cases
    • 3) Insurance will cover some, not others
    • 4) Measure of damages can vary based on NEG or intent
    • 5) Vicarious liability
    • 6) Substantive elements-easier or harder to show
  7. Single v. Dual intent
    Single: 1) Intent to contact another that results in a harmful or offensive touching (Minors and incompetents will be liable in all of these cases) Dual: 1) Intent to contact and 2) intent that the contact be harmful or offensive (minors and incompetents less likely to be liable because harder to approve intent for contact to be harmful or offensive)
  8. Battery:
    • 1) Deliberate contact
    • 2) Contact is harmful or offensive 
    • Harmful or Offensive contact: One which the recipient of the contact has not consented either directly or by implication; Offensive if it would be considered offensive by a reasonable person (CONSENT PRIVILEGE) 
    • "Plaintiff's person"-anything connected to P's person is part of the Plaintiff's person
    • Interest protected: bodily integrity 
    • Transferred intent applies
    • Apprehension is not necessary (don't have to be conscious of the harm)
    • Context matters: crowded world
  9. Assault
    • Act that creates a reasonable apprehension in P of D's apparent imminent ability to effectuate a battery. 
    • Interest protected: mental integrity
    • Limiters: Reasonable apprehension and timing
    • Requirement of reasonableness: Apprehension of harm or offensive contact must be reasonable, apply reasonable person test. Not the same as fear, apprehension is used in a sense of expectation. Knowledge of the act is required, but knowledge of D's identity is not required. D's apparent ability to act is sufficient; Effect of words: Words alone do not constitute an assault, an overt act is required. A condition treat is sufficient.
    • Requirement of Immediacy: Apprehension must be of immediate harmful or offensive contact, so threats of future contact are insufficient. Also, if D is too far away to harm P, that is not assault.
    • Transferred intent
    • Problem: mind; Problem of law trying to objectively determine something that is innately subjective, the mind
  10. False Imprisonment
    • Protecting interest of freedom of movement
    • 1) There must have been a willful detention/intent to confine
    • 2) The detention must have been without consent
    • 3) The detention was unlawful
    • Other elements: 
    • confinement has occurred
    • Complete confinement with boundaries, fixed by D (no reasonable means of escape known to person confined)
    • immediate 
    • duration does not matter in entitlement to harm, but may go to damages
    • Do not have to show actual injury or mental distress (subjective, but have a right to mental integrity)
    • Consent can be initially given, and later withdrawn, resulting in false imprisonment
  11. IIED
    • Protects mental integrity
    • 1) Conduct must be intentional or reckless (So does not necessarily require intent)
    • 2) Conduct must be extreme and outrageous (objective based on societal norms, reasonable standard; matters if actor is aware of someone's particular fears, frailty, colors how we look at outrageous; relationships matter
    • 3) Causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress (Difficult: is someone has other influences, ow do we track this this led to that?)
    • 4) Emotional distress must be severe (Do not have to show harm, but physical manifestation is best evidence)
    • So we could have same conduct in two places, and one person fall apart and the other has no effect...only liability where emotional distress occurred. 
    • Other elements: take people as we find them, a preexisting condition can preclude an action for a claim; relationships matter in terms of extreme and outrageous, concerned with societal standards, outrageousness-garden variety insults are excluded
    • Allow recovery id D knows of a bystander's presence and 1) conduct was directed at a member of bystander's immediate family 2) bystander suffers bodily harm as a result of her distress
    • Narrower tort b/c of limiters: outrageous and severe
  12. Trespass to Land
    • Interest of exclusive possession of land
    • 1. Enter another's property w/o permission, it is an unauthorized trespass (physical invasion); still trespass even if honest and reasonable belief your land (intent to trespass is not required, but intend to enter land volitionally), not necessarily D who enters land-coudl be gun shots, floods
    • 2. Land-on surface, below, or above 
    • Exclusivity
    • Doesn't require harm, requires invasion of interest law protects
    • Transferred intent
    • History: used to protect land because had such an important part of society and needed a vehicle to protect that interest
  13. Trespass to Chattels
    • Interest of right to possess chattels (use and value of property)
    • 1. Damage to the chattel
    • 2) Owner deprived of the use of chattel for a substantial time (do not have to be completely deprived)
    • 3) Bodily harm results from trespass
    • Intent: Intent to do the act of interference with the chattel is sufficient, mistake is no defense
    • Transferred intent
    • Not as serious in nature as conversion
    • Actual damages
  14. Conversion
    • Interest of use and value of property
    • An act by D interfering with P's right of possession in the chattel that is serious enough in nature or consequence to warrant that the D pay full value of the chattel 
    • Intent: Intent to dispossess the chattel is sufficient, Even if innocent conduct, accident conduct is still conversion  
    • Do not have to show actual damages
  15. Chattels v. Conversion
    • Interest: possessory in property
    • Who can sue: possessor
    • Nature of interference: CH-minor, CO-major
    • Harm-CH-must show some harm/damages, CO-do not have to show actual harm/damages
    • Remedy: CH-diminish in value or rental value, loss of value CO-full market value of property

What would you like to do?

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview