This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Torts - Outline www.swapnotes.com Page 1 of 30 Professor Weisburg Fall 2004 TortWeisOutline1.pdf The development of liability based on fault: Anonymous-you are entitled to recover (regardless of intent or circumstances) Weaver v. Ward-soldier shot another accidentally, and held responsible b/c liable for injuries directly caused by your actions, unless utterly w/o fault. **added possible excuse for D -if s/o else caused the action with his object. Brown v. Kendall-2 dogs fighting. D lifted stick to separate dogs and hit P. D not liable. s If D actions were unintentional and he acted with due care, not liable. s The burden of proof is on the P to show that the D didnt act w/ necessary care or that he did with intent. Cohen v. Petty-ill driver. J/D. When injury results from s/t that is unforeseeable, no liability INTENTIONAL TORTS A.PRIMA FACIE CASE To establish a prima facie case of intentional tort, P must prove: 1. Act by Defendant- the act required is a volitional movement by D. 2. Intent- Must intend the act that amounts to or produces the unlawful invasion and the intrusion must be the virtually inevitable consequence of the willful act. a. Specific intent- the goal in acting is to bring about specific consequences b. General intent- the actor knows w/ substantial certainty that these consequences will result c. Transferred Intent- intent transfers to the tort actually committed or to the person actually injured. a. Only applies where the intended tort and the actual tort is assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, or trespass to chattel b. Talmadge v Smith- D threw stick at 1 boy and hit another. Liable. c. Rule: transferred intent cannot be claimed if the original intent is fulfilled d. It is the intent to bring about the consequences of the tort and not injury . Thus, a person may be liable for unintended injuries from the consequences of the tort. a. Vosburg v Putney- schoolboy kicked another lightly boy didnt feel it. Prior condition lit up and causes $2500 injuries. e. Motive impels a person to achieve a result. Intent denotes the purpose to use a particular means to cause that result. Therefore, even if a person acts w/o a hostile motive or desire to harm, or even when he is seeking to aid the P, he may be liable. a. Mistake does not absolve a person from being held liable for intentional tort. i. Ranson v. Kitner-killed dog mistaken for a wolf and held liable f. Everyone is capable of intent in intentional torts-even minors and incompetents. 3. Causation- the Ds conduct must have been a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. *the courts are more willing to extend the chain of causation here than by negligence.* a. Garratt v. Dailey- child pulled chair out from old woman and held liable....
View Full Document