Torts-Wyman-Sp06

Torts-Wyman-Sp06 - Wyman Spring 2006 TORTS OUTLINE I. Tort...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Intentional torts were the first to develop tort system as a way of keeping the peace / dissuading vigilantism Wyman Spring 2006 T T ORTS ORTS  O  O UTLINE UTLINE I.  Tort Law T ORT A CIVIL WRONG NOT SOUNDING IN CONTRACT 1) Three basic kinds of torts: a) Intentional Torts —intentional invasion of person or property. Fault + intent b) Negligence-- fault c) Strict Liability— no fault 2) Think of torts as a system of regulation 3) Always consider : a) What is the purpose of tort law? What does liability really mean? i) Compensatory rationale —Make the injured party whole again (1) Issue of transaction costs (2) Who should bear losses? (3) Who is in the best position to bear the losses (4) Who is the best cost-avoider? (5) Should a case settle or go to trial? ii) Deterrence considerations —dissuade vigilantism (1) Encourage efforts to avoid this harm in the future (2) Encourage actor to take more precautions / more care iii) Corrective Justice (1) Mechanism by which individuals can from the actor who caused their harm (2) Deterrence / retributive function iv) Mechanism of accountability (1) Judge or jury b) What are the benefits of a tort law system? Rather than leave it to insurance, regulators, etc. i) Tort system empower the individual ii) Other system might be better at deterring a group c) A TTACK PLAN : i) Prima facie case —has a prima facie case been made for the tort? ii) Defenses iii) Damages —what damages may be applicable. N.B .: (1) Punitive damages (2) Damages for emotional distress (3) Damages for loss of companionship (4) Damages for unlikely and far-reaching consequences (5) Damages for economic loss II.  Intentional Torts 1
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
A. B ATTERY Elements of Battery 1. Volitional act 2. Intending to cause: a. Harmful contact or b. Contact that is offensive 3. The act causes the contact 1) Prima facie case : a) Act requirement is generally not an issue b) Intent = mental state of the alleged tortfeasor. Likely to depend on circumstantial evidence. c) Causation = contact causing injury. May be direct or indirect 2) Harmful or offensive contact a) Issue = whether the touching offends common standards of accepted touching , not whether a person was actually offended by the touching determination for fact-finder i) Extends to personal effects: Can sometimes include touching someone with an object, and touching an object of P’s that is closely related to her body may also be battery (1) Fisher v. Carrrousel Motor Hotel —When P (African-American) standing on line at D hotel, employee snatches plate out of his hand & shouts African-Americans are not served; Court finds that P has suffered battery because snatching the plate away was essentially an offensive touching: doctrine of extended personality ii) Herr v. Booten —no battery in providing someone with alcohol . Looking to the underlying interest
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 04/04/2008 for the course LAW ALL taught by Professor Multiple during the Fall '06 term at NYU.

Page1 / 40

Torts-Wyman-Sp06 - Wyman Spring 2006 TORTS OUTLINE I. Tort...

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