outline - MOTTO: DISCUSS EVERYTHING! Intentional: purpose...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
MOTTO: DISCUSS EVERYTHING!!! Intentional: purpose and substantial certainty Transferred Intent: person-to-person and tort-to-tort Battery: harmful or offensive contact Assault (imminence): imminent apprehension of battery False imprisonment: confinement Infliction of emotional distress: extreme and outrageous conduct; severe emotional distress CHAPTER TWO: INTENTIONAL TORTS AGAINST THE PERSON I Intent Defined A. Meaning of intent: 1. Purpose: The ∆ has to have the purpose of producing the consequence a. The ∆ doesn’t necessarily have to have an intent/desire to harm Vosburg v. Putney (Π kicked ∆ on shin that lit up an infection) 2. Substantial certainty: If ∆ knows with substantial certainty that a particular effect will occur as a result of her actions she is deemed to have intended that result. a. ex: Garrat v. Dailey : Π knew w/SC that pulling chair out would cause ∆ to fall b. reckless or highly likely is not enough c. ∆ is liable even for any unforeseeable injury suffered by Π as a result of intentional tort (LIABLE FOR EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS) B. Transferred intent: If ∆ held the necessary intent with respect to person A, he will be held to have committed an intentional tort against any other person who happens to be injured. If ∆ intends one tort, but causes another, that is also transferred intent. 1. Talmadge v. Smith : ∆ intends to throw stick to someone, but it hits the Π instead. Held: Liable to Π (person-to-person TI) C. Mistake/Good Faith does not negate intent: Ranson v. Kitner (wolfe dog) D. Insane People are capable of committing torts b/c they can be capable of forming intent to do a harmful act (not capable if you need malice) 1. McGuire v. Almy : insane person ∆ hit nurse Π on head w/furniture II Battery A. Definition: Battery is the intentional infliction of a harmful or offensive bodily contact. (contact that ends up being harmful or offensive) B. Intent: It is not necessary that ∆ desires to physically harm Π. ∆ has the necessary intent for battery if it is the case that ∆ intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact.
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
MOTTO: DISCUSS EVERYTHING!!! C. Harmful or offensive contact: If the contact is ‘harmful,’ this qualifies. But battery also covers contacts which are merely ‘offensive.’ (damaging to a reasonable sense of dignity) 1. Some contacts are reasonable (brushing past) Wallace v. Rosen where teacher touches Π during fire drill 2. Offensive Contacts: a. Mohr v. Williams: doctor operates on different ear; not intended harm b/ c it was to help ear, but it was still offensive contact b. Extends to Person (not just body) : Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc. plate case D. P need not be aware: It is not necessary that Π have actual awareness of the contact at the time it occurs. E. Reasonableness Standard:
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 03/20/2008 for the course LAW Civ Pro taught by Professor Saunders during the Fall '07 term at UNC.

Page1 / 40

outline - MOTTO: DISCUSS EVERYTHING! Intentional: purpose...

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