Intentional and Unintentional Torts.docx - INTENTIONAL TORTS Theory of Intentional Torts These are avoidable acts and the law seeks to dissuade but but

Intentional and Unintentional Torts.docx - INTENTIONAL...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 49 pages.

INTENTIONAL TORTS Theory of Intentional Torts: These are avoidable acts and the law seeks to dissuade but, but avoidable acts. Outcomes will look to incentivize or disincentivize good and bad behavior respectively. Causes of Action: 1) Battery 2) Trespass 3) Conversion 4) False Imprisonment 5) Assault 6) Outrage 7) Privileges A. BATTERY Battery : Intentionally and voluntarily bringing about an un-consented harmful or offensive contact with a person. Elements (cite to Farnsworth): 1. Act: must be voluntary- the touching has to be unlawful (going out of the social norms-to be wrong)- volitional muscular movement 2. Intent to cause contact (or substantial certainty contact will result—Garret v. Daily) a. Substantial certainty: that D’s act in some sense “caused” the harmful or offensive contact, either because D himself touched P, or because D set in motion the force that brought about harmful contact 3. Harmful or offensive contact (unconsented) 4. Causation 1. Intent to Cause Contact and Voluntary Act Requirement: Must intend to act AND must act for the purpose of inflicting a harmful or offensive contact on the . OR Must realize that such a contact is substantially certain to result. Vosburg v. Putney (Wis. 1891): L. Eggshell Plaintiff: Take the plaintiff as you find them. D intended to tap P’s leg, but P ended up with complication and resulted in a lame leg. No intent to harm required. Class was called to order so any kicking was inherently offensive. Also demonstrates offensive contact. Rule: The intent to do unlawful contact satisfies the intent requirement of battery; (does NOT need to just intend to cause harm); the wrongdoer is liable for all injuries resulting directly from the wrongful act, whether they could or could not have been foreseen by him; Have to have intended to cause the contact, but not the consequences Egg Shell Plaintiff Rule Knight v. Jewett (Cal 1990): NL . Two hand touch P warned D he was playing too rough, but pushing was held within the decorum of football. D subsequently unintentionally stepped on P’s finger, and lost finger. Intent to cause contact is necessary. 1. Rule: Implied license negates the intent to do an offensive or harmful contact. Polmatier v. Russ (Conn. 1988): L Son shoots father thinking he is a secret agent. Insanity does not negate intent because there was an intentional choice (even though it was a crazy one). Public policy heavily favors liability: a) encourage caregivers to attend to ill family. B) Someone has to bear the cost, shouldn’t be victim. C) Fear of fallacious claims of insanity. White v. University of Idaho (Idaho 1989): L Univ. not liable if teacher committed battery. Similar Eggshell principle. Piano Teach stroked students back to demonstrate technique, but latent medical issue arises resulting in multiple surgeries, broken ribs and neck problems.
Image of page 1

Want to read all 49 pages?

Image of page 2

Want to read all 49 pages?

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 49 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture