Torts Outline - Torts Outline Last edited May 1 2016...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 28 pages.

We have textbook solutions for you!
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Introduction to Learning and Behavior
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Chapter 1 / Exercise 2
Introduction to Learning and Behavior
Honey/Powell
Expert Verified
Torts Outline: Last edited May 1, 2016intentional tortsEvolution of Fault-based LiabilityI.Origins of Tort Lawa.Trespass, action on the caseb.OLD RoL: Originally, tort law was concerned with casual sequence, and not intentThe Case of the Thorns (1466)c.OLD RoL:Unless utterly without fault, the one who causes an injury is liable for all damages out of fairness.Weaver v. Ward (1616)(gun accidentally discharged, shot someone)II.Modern Tort Lawa.RoL: If someone gets injured while someone else is performing a lawful act, the burden is on the plaintiff to show why the defendant was grossly negligent.Brown v. Kendall(dog, stick, eye case)b.W/I backdrop of BatteryI.ELEMENTSa.Intentional infliction ofb.An unlawful bodily contact or offensive touchingc.Upon anotherGarret v. Dailey (1955)(where a child was held liable in a battery claim, as even a child realizes pulling a chair from underneath someone will cause harmful bodily contact)II.SPECIFIC RULESa.Rest. 2d of Torts definition of act:i.“an external manifestation of the actor’s will and does not include any of its results, even the most direct, immediate, and intended.”b.RoL: Only intent to make contact is necessary, and the ∆ need not intend any specific result.Wagner v. State (2005)(hair pulling, mentally challenged, K-Mart)c.RoL: Good faith intent still fulfills the intent requirement because the person still had the intent to make contactRanson v. Kitner(accidentially shot dog, thinking it to be a wolf)d.RoL: Mentally incapacity is not an excuse for battery, as only the intent to make contact is required.McGuire v. Almye.RoL: Intent to make contact is transferableTalmage v. Smith(threw a stick and missed, hit some other person)f.RoL: Absent intent, a plaintiff cannot bring a battery action for negligenceWallace v. Rosen(stairs, school, touching)g.RoL: Removal of chattel from someone can constitute a battery, because it is a forceful disposition of a protected interest.1
We have textbook solutions for you!
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Introduction to Learning and Behavior
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Chapter 1 / Exercise 2
Introduction to Learning and Behavior
Honey/Powell
Expert Verified
Torts Outline: Last edited May 1, 2016Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc.(black NASA mathematician, plate, epithet)h.RoL: Children can form intent after 3i.RoL: Mental incapacity is not taken in to consideration. Wagner v. State. McGuire v. Almy.III.TYPES OF INTENTa.Purpose intent:i.Most cases, the intent to invade protected interestb.Substantial certainty:i.Garret v. Dailey, be substantially certain your actions will cause harmful or offensive touchingAssaultI.ELEMENTSa.An act which directly causes a person to be placed either inb.Fear of an immediate battery ORc.Apprehension of an immediate batteryWestern Union Telegraph v. Hill(fix your clock, love making, attempt to put hand on woman)II.SPECIFIC RULESa.RoL: Words alone are insufficient for an assault, unless you reasonably suspect they are armed.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture