Tort-Outline2

Tort-Outline2 - Torts - Mini Outline Professor Weisburg...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Torts - Mini Outline www.swapnotes.com Page 1 of 8 Professor Weisburg Fall 2004 TortWeisOutline2.pdf INTENTIONAL TORTS 1) Prima Facie case: a) Act by D b) Intent the act that produces the unlawful invasion(specific) or substantial certainty that the consequences will occur (general) i) Transferred intent- Talmadge v Smith (threw stick and hit another) c) Causation -D conduct must have been a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. It can be direct or indirect (set into motion by the D) i) Garratt v. Dailey(child pulled chair out from old woman. J/P) 2) BATTERY - a) A N INTENTIONAL ACT BY THE D TO CAUSE A HARMFUL / OFFENSIVE CONTACT TO THE P’ S PERSON . b) Based on the reasonable person, offensive if no consent, don’t need to be aware c) Fisher v Carousel (snatched plate J/P) a/t connected to the P is his person d) Vosburg v Putney (boy kicked another and inflammation) 3) ASSAULT- a) A N INTENTIONAL ACT BY THE D TO PLACE THE P IN REASONABLE APREHENSION OF AN IMMINENT TOUCHING TO HIS PERSON . b) Reasonable person, awareness necessary, words alone are not an assault c) Western Union Telegraph v Hill (love and pet J/P) D needs ability to harm d) I de S et ux v W de S (invader swung hatchet at woman J/P.) e) Tuberville v Savage (37) words can negate assault 4) FALSE IMPRISONMENT- a) A N INTENTIONAL ACT OR OMMSION BY THE D THAT CONFINES OR RESTRAINS THE AWARE P TO A BOUNDED AREA . b) Methods: physical barriers, physical force, threats of force c) Insufficient methods: moral pressure or future threats d) Parvi v City of Kingston (drunk P to golf course by police J/P) e) Hardy v La Belle (detained for stealing jewelry-not against her will) f) Whittaker v Sanford (boat and didn’t get to land) inaction by D will be FP 5) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS a) A N INTENTIONAL OR RECKLESS ACT BY D AMOUNTING TO EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT THAT CAUSES SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS . b) Taylor v Vallelunga (Psaw dad beaten. J/D b/c didn’t know she was there) c) State Rubbish Collectors Ass’n v Siliznoff (pay or else J/P) d) Harris v Jones (P’s stutter at work J/D) e) Slocum v Food Fair Stores of FL (You stink-heart attack J/D) mere vulgarities 6) TRESPASS TO LAND a) A N INTENTIONAL ACT BY THE D THAT CAUSED A PHYSICAL INVASION OF P’ S REAL PROPERTY b) Includes surface area above and below to the extent used by the P. c) Dougherty v Stepp- (D entered to survey-no marks J/P) unprivileged entry! 7) TRESPASS TO CHATTEL a) A N INTENTIONAL ACT BY THE D THAT CAUSES AN INTERFERENCE W / P’ S RIGHT OF POSSESSION IN THE CHATTEL CAUSING ACTUAL DAMAGES . b) Ranson v Kitner (killed dog mistaken for wolf) Mistake is not a defense 8) DEFENSES TO INTENTIONAL TORTS:
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Torts - Mini Outline www.swapnotes.com Page 2 of 8 Professor Weisburg Fall 2004 TortWeisOutline2.pdf a) CONSENT- P EXPRESSED A WILLINGNESS TO SUBMIT TO THE D’ S CONDUCT i) EXPRESS- mistake-valid, fraud-invalid, duress-invalid (1) De May v Roberts (pretense of dr) by fraud not valid ii)
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.

Page1 / 8

Tort-Outline2 - Torts - Mini Outline Professor Weisburg...

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