Robertson_Torts - Torts Outline Robertson Fall 2002...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Torts Outline Robertson Fall 2002 Procedure 1. P Complaint 2. D motion to dismiss (if not tortuous conduct by law based on P’s pleadings) 3. D motion for summary judgment (D brings additional facts) 4. Answer 5. P case in chief 6. D.V. #1 (D only) 7. D case in chief 8. D.V. #2 (either P or D) 9. instructions 10. verdict 11. motion for new trial or j.n.o.v. 12. judgment 13. appeal I. Elements of Tort Analysis A. Authority (precedent) B. Economic Efficiency Cost avoidance Deterence C. Moral Fairness Substitute for Private Vengeance Law Abidingness ( Martin v. Herzog) It’s moral to follow the law (CARDOZO) D. Administrative Court Efficiency Court Comfort Court Integrity/Credibility
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Intentional Torts to the Perso n A. Battery I. Elements (4) a. D’s act b. Caused touch to P’s “person” Physical contact not necessary as long as there is contact with an object closely identified with the body (includes clothing) Fisher v Carrousel Motor Hotel - snatching place from black patron was “touch” enough Ct. cites Morgan v Loyacomo shoplifting case to expand “touch” c. Touch is harmful or offensive to a reasonable sense of dignity Functions as an objective test (usually for jury) Fisher -snatching plate b/c of race was ORSD Jones v Fisher- D’s wrestling P to ground and removing dentures was ORSD d. D intented touch “intent” includes desire or knowledge to a substantial certainty that touch (contact) would occur, not that D intended or knew that harm or ORSD would occur. Garratt v Dailey - intent only has to mean knowledge of contact (butt hitting floor) Ghassemeih v Schafer - intent to harm not a part of battery, only intent to touch; there is a considerable overlap between battery and negligence. White v University of Idaho - expansive view of battery-all teacher did was touch student’s back B. Assualt I. Elements (4) a. D’s Act b. Caused apprehension of imminent battery No touch required; apprehension does not mean just fear, but that P did not desire touch (If Robertson swings at Mike Tyson, no fear, but still an assault) Vetter v Morgan- D spat on P’s van-“Imminent” can mean with “no significant delay”, not instantaneous. Usually submitted to jury We do not include D’s “ability” to cause harm because it would be easy to get out of tort (ex. D knows gun is not loaded) c. Apprehension was reasonable d. D intended apprehension Desire of knowledge to a substantial certainty that apprehension would occur Bennight v Western Auto Supply - loophole of worker’s comp says Bennight must prove the wife’s blindness was intent of assault; manager did not desire that wife go blind, but he knew to a substantial certainty that his conduct would put her in apprehension of a battery. Needs tort-tort transferred intent. C.
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 08/28/2008 for the course LAW 427 taught by Professor Robertson during the Spring '08 term at University of Texas.

Page1 / 31

Robertson_Torts - Torts Outline Robertson Fall 2002...

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