Tort Outline2

Tort Outline2 - Torts Outline Professor...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon Torts – Outline Fall 2004 Professor Weisberg Page 1 of 19 WeisbergTortOutline2.pdf Intentional Torts Development of Liability Based Upon Fault Anonymous. If there is a rudimentary cause and effect, s/o who causes damage to another is liable regardless of intention. Weaver v Ward. D accidentally shoots P in a military exercise. D liable. 1 st case to notice that D may not automatically be liable, but the burden of proof is on D to prove his innocence. Brown v Kendall. D separated 2 fighting dogs. In order to hold D liable, P must prove either lack of due care or intent, not merely cause and effect. Cohen v Petty. Driver fainting at the wheel, car accident, P passenger injured. D acquitted. This is coming to show us how much harder it is for P to recover. P must prove fault, which is an absence of due care, or intent. To establish a prima facie case of intentional tort, P must prove: That the act of D was a volitional act That there was intent, motive or purpose to harm; either specific (the goal is to bring about a specific consequence) or general (D knew with “substantial certainty” that the consequences will result). If one can prove intent, there is no requirement to prove damages, unlike in negligence. Causation. D’s act must have been a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. o Transferred intent applies where D intended to commit an intentional tort against s/o but instead (i) commits a different tort against that person (ii) commits it against s/o else or (iii) commits a different tort against a different person. o The tort intended and resulted must be either battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, or trespass to chattel. Talmage v Smith. D intended to throw the stick at one boy, it hit s/o else. It was an unlawful act; use of excessive force. 1. If D can be shown to have intent to do harm to a 3 rd party and instead harms P, P can adopt the unfulfilled intention as intended to him. 2. If D hits A, and B gets hurt also, there is no transferred intent b/c the intent was executed on A. B can sue for negligence. Battery Harmful or offensive contact Fisher v Carrousel. Black man humiliated, and his plate was snatched. No physical harm. 1. If one can show an intentional and unpermitted invasion of space, can show a battery. 2. Words alone do not constitute a battery; some sort of contact is necessary. But had there been no words it would have been harder to recover, b/c there is a dignitary component.
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 – Outline Fall 2004 Professor Weisberg Page 2 of 19 WeisbergTortOutline2.pdf P’s person, any part, judged by a reasonable person standard. Consent is implied for everyday, minor contact. Contact can be direct (hitting P) or indirect (setting a trap for P).
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 / 19

Tort Outline2 - Torts Outline Professor...

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