September 19 Case and Notes

September 19 Case and Notes - September 19, 2008 Review:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
September 19, 2008 Review: Tamage v. Smith- transferred intent, can be one from one person to the other person (intends to touch one person and ended up touching another) and supplies the intent and the intent to commit one trespass tort resulting in another trespass tort supplies the intent for the second trespass. Ex. If I threw a ball at one person, they duck, and it hits another person, the intent to commit assault/ Battery: intent, contact (body to body, touching something intimately connected), plaintiff does not have to be aware of the battery, unanticipated damages might be collected. Assault: intent: the intention to touch in a harmful or offensive manner or the intention to cause apprehension (must be reasonable) of a harmful of offensive touching. The danger must be imminent. Does the actor have the ability to make the touching happen? Actual damages are not necessary. FI: Freedom from confinement. Confining someone against their conscious will. Watch out for confinement in many different forms. IIED: Public policy, this tort will get away from them. D must have intention to cause severe emotional distress, must act in extreme and outrageous manner, beyond the bound that society can tolerate and must bring about severe emotional distress and in some jurisdictions, they must show a manifestation of the emotional distress. Brings about damage. Third Party Victims: Those who are present at a situation where a victim is harmed and the P is a third party. NEED THREE PARTIES!! Need D who is committing a wrongful emotional act, a victim and then an observer. D KWSC that the third party was present. Some courts say the P must be a family member. Trespass to Land: Intentionally went to the place you went to doesn’t matter if you knew you were trespassing. When you intentionally enter the land possessed by another. Or you remain on another’s land after the privilege, consent etc is over. Or fails to remove something you said you would remove. Does not have to be fenced, invasion of the rights of the lawful possessor, watch out for if the D actually went there or intended to go there, if a ball went there, not trespass because didn’t mean for the ball to go there or didn’t have KWSC that the ball would go there. Trespass to Chattels Glidden v. Szybiak Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1949 Law: Any person to whom or to whose property damage may be occasioned by a dog not owned or kept by him shall be entitled to recover such damage of the person who owns or keeps the dog, unless the damage was occasioned to him while he was engaged in the commission of a trespass or other tort. One who without consensual or other privilege to do so, uses or otherwise intentionally intermeddles with a chattel which is in possession of another is liable for a trespass, if, a) the chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality or value or, b) the possessor is deprived of the use of the chattel for a substantial time or, c) bodily harm is thereby caused to the possessor or harm is caused to some
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/23/2009 for the course TORTS 106 taught by Professor Palmer during the Fall '08 term at McMaster University.

Page1 / 10

September 19 Case and Notes - September 19, 2008 Review:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online