Intentional Torts

• Who is the plaintiff?
• Who is the defendant/who are the defendants?
• Who are the responsible parties?
• What is the plaintiff’s injury or injuries?
• What legal theory/theories can the plaintiff assert?

Make sure that it is a torts question.

• Voluntary act
• Intent
• Causation
• Harm
• No privilege or defense

Conscience and willed

• D desired/intended/purposely sought consequences; OR
• Defendant knew consequences were substantially certain to occur

D's act or a force se tin motion by the act must cause the plaintiff's injury

• Varies tort-to-tort
• Either harm established by tort or specific injury

• (1) D voluntarily; and
• (2) Intentionally
• (3) Causes
• (4) Harmful or offensive contact
• (5) to P or something closely connected to P

Contact inflicts pain/impairment of any body function, or if a reasonable person would regard it as offensive.

ANY amount of physical discomfort is sufficient for a prima facie case of battery

• P must show that D either: (1) D desired contact; OR (2)
• D was substantially certain that the result would occur

*Hint* Distinguish intent and motive

D acts w/ the necessary intent for certain intentional torts, but injurs different victim, there is transferred intent.

Transfer intent only applies to assault, battery, false imprisonment or trespass to land or to chattles

The fact that a defendant is mentally incompetent or a minor does not preclude a finding that he or she possessed the intent to commit an intentional tort, but incompetency may affect whether such intent actually existed.

Reasonable person standard does not apply if the defendant is aware of the plaintiff's particular susceptibility

The plaintiff's person or something close the plaintiff

Awareness is not necessary (unlike assault)

Consent

• Often, but not always, arises where there is a battery.
• Defendant places plaintiff in reasonable apprehension of battery

No, the merger does not apply, but both tortious actions can be present.

• Intent by defendant;
• Plaintiff has reasonable apprehension of battery; AND
• Battery is imminent

• Show that the defendant had the purpose to create apprehension
• Defendant knew that apprehension was substantially certain to result
• Transferred intent applies, usually from another tort
• Assault intent is established if battery intent is established

• Reasonable knowledge; must be feasible that she could not stop the harmful conduct
• Disturbance of mental tranquility

Particular susceptibility is relevant if it is known by defendant

• Battery must be able to be carried out almost instantly
• Can't be a threat for a later event

When the defendant confines the plaintiff to a bounded area against consent of plaintiff and the plaintiff is aware or harmed

• Intent
• Confinement
• Against plaintiff's will
• Plaintiff has knowledge of confinement or is harmed

• Plaintiff must show that defendant desired confinement; or
• Knew that confinement was substantially sure to result
• Motive is irrelevant

There must be actual confinement of plaintiff in a bounded area. Not letting them to go where they want to go is not confinement. Doesn't matter quality or quantity of space of confinement are irrelevant.

Length of confinement does not matter. A short period of time is fine as long as the plaintiff is aware of the confinement, there is enough to establish confinement

• Force or threat of force.
• Example: threat of physical harm to family members.

Then there is no confinement; no false imprisionment

• If there is knowledge of confinement, then false imprisonment has occurred and she Is entitled to any damages granted by jury
• If there is no knowledge of confinement, plaintiff must have actual damages or harm if unaware of the confinement

A form of false imprisonment; same rules apply

Intentionally or recklessly engages in conduct that amounts to extreme and outrageous conduct that causes the plaintiff severe mental distress

• Intent or recklessness (Broader mental state than other intentional torts)
• Extreme and outrageous conduct
• Causation
• Severe emotional distress

• Defendant desired severe emotional distress; or
• Substantially certainty of emotional distress

Conscious disregard of a high degree of probability that the emotional distress will follow

No, but recklessness can take place of transferred intent, but presence is required.

• Conduct that exceeds all bounds tolerated by a civilized society (HIGH THRESHOLD)
• Far beyond mere insults
• Offensive or insulting language is generally not considered outrageous

• Lesser conduct is enough if the defendant is engaged in certain callings (example: inkeeper)
• Reasonably outrageous will then be enough
• Particular susceptibility of which defendant acts to exploit
• Developing exception: A person of authority uses racial or ethnic insults of underlings; particularly hateful form of insult

• Doesn't come up often, but at least one situation is where the plaintiff was a mental basketcase before the conduct occurs.
• No reason can be shown that the plaintiff was the reason.

• SEVERE emotional distress must be PROVEN; can't be trivial
• No physical injury required

Defendant intentional enters or causes something to enter

• Intent
• Entrance
• Plaintiff's land

• Defendant desired to enter land; or
• Defendant knew that entry to land was reasonably certain

Mistake is not a defense as to a trespass action

Full extent of the harm caused by defendant

• Must have some particulate, even if small, like pesticide. Reasonable amount above or below surface
• Can cross land without touching it

Since it is a tort against possession, anyone in possession of the land can bring an action. Includes owner, tenant, adverse possessor, etc.

• Legal remedies: damages
• Restitutionary: designed to prevent unjust enrichment
• Equitable remedies: usually for nuisance, injunctions

• Nominal damages
• Actual damages
• Restitutionary - ejectment

Where defendant intentionally intermeddles with the personal property of the plaintiff

• Intent
• Interference
• Plaintiff's personal property/chattel
• Harm

• The defendant intent's to act / to intermeddle
• Mistake is not a defense, even where belief is intentional

• Must be actual harm; specific damages
• Prevent use by it's owner
• Accident and immediate return is not sufficiently significant

• Replevin: Get back personal property
• Restitution

Intentional act by defendant that causes the destruction of or a serious and substantial interference with the plaintiff's chattel

• Intent
• Dominion and control
• Substantial interference

Yes, where damages cannot be recovered from initial converter

• Forced sale: Converter is basically required to pay the FMV of the chattel at the time it was converted
• Replevin: Action brought by plaintiff to get personal property returned to the plaintiff

• Privilege
• Others
• Property
• Consent
• Authority
• Necessity
• Self-defense

There is no recovery for any damages for any of the intentional torts

• Express consent: Plaintiff verbally manifests consent to intentional torts; belief of consent must be reasonable
• Implied consent: conduct manifests a willingness to be exposed to intentional torts

• Reasonable extent
• Standard: Must be a reasonable interpretation of plaintiff's conduct as evidencing permission to act

It is the product of a mistake of fact or law as to the nature or consequences of the defendant's act; and the defendant is aware of the mistake

A defendant honestly and reasonably believes that the force she uses is necessary to prevent imminent harm

• Defendant only need be reasonable and must respond with proportionate force
• Limit: Self-defense is no longer a defense when there is no longer a threat

• Some jurisdictions, you must not retreat unless before deadly force, others you never have to retreat
• No requirement to retreat from home in any jursidictions

Honestly and reasonably believes she is trying to protect third party has an affirmative defense

A defendant may take reasonable steps to defend real or personal property

Defendant's may never use deadly force to protect property

*Hint* Look for situations where the situation escalates from defense of property to defense of others such as one's family, etc. This will allow deadly force. Spring guns bad because one must first ask trespasser to leave unless it is futile to do so.

One may use reasonable force to eject a trespasser from personal property after asking them to leave

If you are wrong, and it is not really your personal property, than this is no longer a defense.

Right think to do was commit intentional tort because it was the lesser of two evils

• Private: A defendant is permitted to injure a plaintiff's property if this is reasonably ncessary to avoid a substantially greater harm to the public, to himself, or to his property
• Public: Defendant, often government actor, was acting to protect the plaintiff from imminent harm

When there is an arrest in the following circumstances:

• Felony: Police officer reasonably believes the felony was committed by the person
• Misdemeanor: Only for misdemeanor's that are a breach of police

We are always in liable if we are wrong about the belief

• Allows commercial establishment to detain those suspected of shoplifting
• Reasonable time as long as reasonable belief and reasonable investigation

Parents/teachers may use reasonable force to discipline children. Not excuse for child abuse and no deadly force permitted