{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}


tortswendel - Torts Outline Wendel 2006 i Intentional Torts...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Torts Outline Wendel 2006 i. Intentional Torts a. Battery i. Physical contact 1. Can be an object attached to or identified with a person’s body. Picard v. Barry Pontiac-Buick, Inc. a. to protect an individual’s of personal autonomy ii. Harmful or offensive to the reasonable person 1. A contact which offends one who is unduly sensitive is not actionable. Wishnatsky v. Huey a. Necessity of social rights prevail when put against certain individual rights 2. Unless the offender knows that the person is unduly sensitive 3. Objective standard to make people’s conduct predictable iii. Intent to cause the contact 1. Intent is intent to make the contact, not intent to cause harm. Vosburg v. Putney 2. If actor knows with substantial certainty that the harm will result, then intent is established. Garrett v. Dailey a. Don’t necessarily need risk because knowledge of substantial certainty usually good indicator of intent to harm iv. Transferred intent 1. If you intend cause battery to one person, but actually hit another, the intent is “transferred” to the other person, thus making you liable. b. Assault i. Intent 1. threat measured by reasonable person standard 2. does not take into account those who are extra-sensitive ii. Actual threat of bodily injury 1. Conditional statements aren’t actionable – “if I were a violent man, I would…” iii. Imminent 1. Immediate in terms of time: Can’t threaten to go home and get your gun 2. Close in proximity: threat can’t be over phone c. False Imprisonment i. Total confinement 1. if person can leave, then doesn’t interfere with their personal autonomy 2. i.e. forcing someone to take a long way around to get to work doesn’t count ii. Intentional iii. Force, threat of force, assertion of authority 1. Moral pressure or being compelled does not sufficiently constitute unlawful restraint. Lopez v. Winchell Donuts
Background image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
iv. Conscious awareness v. Exceptions: 1. Affirmative Defenses: a. Reasonable Manner, reasonable Time – not longer than time needed for P to make a statement, reasonable Grounds 2. Consent: if a person voluntarily consents to the confinement, there can be no false imprisonment. Lopez v. Winchell Donuts d. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress i. Intentional (or reckless) 1. Where actor knows that distress is certain or substantially certain to result from the conduct intent is established. Womack v. Eldridge ii. Extreme and outrageous conduct 1. Bright line whereby this expansion of liability from battery can be constrained a. Need to constrain the floodgates of litigation 2. Outrageousness is a question of fact to be answered by the jury iii. Severe emotional distress iv. Exception: 1. Alienation of affection. McDermott v. Reynolds a. Floodgates of litigation b. Underlying purpose of preserving institution of marriage is now considered ludicrous e. Defenses and Privileges i. Consent 1. Engaging in specific illegal acts (i.e. prizefighting) automatically shows consent. Hart v. Geysel
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.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 18

tortswendel - Torts Outline Wendel 2006 i Intentional Torts...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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