WeisbergF04TortOutline1

WeisbergF04TortOutline1 - www.swapnotes.com Torts Reduced...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
www.swapnotes.com Torts – Reduced Outline Fall 2004 Professor Weisberg Page 1 of 6 WeisbergTortOutline1.pdf Reduced Outline Intentional Torts Battery Harmful or offensive (unpermitted) contact To the P’s person; dignitary component. Fisher v Carrousel . Causation; D’s act must be a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. Intent; substantial certainty that the right protected against will be violated. Transferred Intent—this can be from tort to tort or person to person, as long as it’s one of 5. The intent can’t have been exhausted. Talmage v Smith. Assault A reasonable apprehension Of an imminent touching Intent Causation False Imprisonment An act or omission ( Whittaker v Sandford) on D’s part that confines or restrains P to a bounded area. o Physical force or threats; moral pressure isn’t enough. o Must be against P’s will. P must be aware of the confinement at the time (Parvi v City of Kingston —drunk) and should have no reasonable prospect of escape. Intent Causation Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Extreme and outrageous conduct o Threats are sufficient; Ass’n v Siliznoff . o Conduct may become outrageous if it’s continuous, directed at a certain class of Ps, or D is a common carrier/innkeeper (directed at right P). Intent; recklessness will suffice. o If D causes harm to 3 rd person, P must prove she was present, a close relative, and that D knew that. Causal connection between the act and distress; more difficult to prove here. Slocum and Harris . Actual damages are required (severe emotional distress). Trespass to Land Physical invasion, by either a person or an object, of P’s real property. Includes up and down. May push s/o or throw s/t; but it must be physical.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
www.swapnotes.com Torts – Reduced Outline Fall 2004 Professor Weisberg Page 2 of 6 WeisbergTortOutline1.pdf Intent to enter the particular piece of land; he doesn’t need to have known it belonged to another. No damages need to be shown. Dougherty v Stepp . Trespass to Chattel An act interfering with P’s right of possession, via damaging or dispossessing. Intent. Liability holds, even though there is mistake. Ranson v Kitner . Causation Damages are actual, not necessarily to the chattel; to the possessory right. Harmless intermeddlings aren’t protected. Glidden v Szybiak . Defenses Consent P must have capacity. Young children and mentally disabled people cannot consent. Was the consent expressly given or was it to be implied?
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/13/2008 for the course LAW 6703 taught by Professor Gilles during the Fall '06 term at Yeshiva.

Page1 / 6

WeisbergF04TortOutline1 - www.swapnotes.com Torts Reduced...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online