1L Intentional Torts

a) Specific intent- Defendant acts with the purpose of bringing tortuous consequence

b) General intent—Defendant acts knowing with substantial certainty tortuous consequence will occur

• c) Transferred Intent- Defendant acts for the purpose of
• bringing tortuous consequence to one person but instead: commits the tort against a different person or commits a different tort

• (1) Commits a different tort against that
• person

• (2) Commits the same torts as intended but
• against a different person

• (3) Commits a different tort against a
• different person

• Applies to 5 Torts:
• (1) Assault
• (2) Battery
• (3) False Imprisonment
• (4) Trespass to land
• (5) Trespass to chattels

Specific intent- Defendant acts with the purpose of bringing tortuous consequence

General intent—Defendant acts knowing with substantial certainty tortuous consequence will occur

Transferred Intent- Defendant acts for the purpose of bringing tortuous consequence to one person but instead: commits the tort against a different person or commits a different tort

• Applies to 5 Torts:
• (1) Assault
• (2) Battery
• (3) False Imprisonment
• (4) Trespass to land
• (5) Trespass to chattels

Mistake made in good faith does not negate intent

i) Mistake – intentional act done with faulty judgment/ ignorance

ii) Accident – Unintentional/ unexpected event happening by chance

Voluntary Intoxication does not negate intent

Insanity does not negate intent.

General Rule: If an insane person has the capacity to entertain tort and his acts cause intentional damage to person or property to another, he is liable

Exceptions & Notes:

(b) Negligent supervision- Even if an insane person is unable to form the intent to commit a tort, an action may lie against those responsible for caring for him

IE: caretakers

Minors do not negate intent.

--5 yrs old and up possess the requisite intent BUT 2 or younger then no intent b/c can’t formulate consequence

(1) Parental Responsibility Statutes

• An intentional harmful or offensive contact to another person (or anything closely
• connected or associated to the person)
• A) Intentional
• Specific,General or Transferred

B) Harmful or Offensive: Judged by a reasonable person under the circumstance standard.

C) “plaintiff’s person”=Anything closely connected or associated to the body (intimate connection)

A) Harmful or Offensive: Judged by a reasonable person under the circumstance standard. Is the contact reasonable?

• i) Crowded World
• Theory (Customary Contact): A certain amount of
• personal contact is inevitable and must be accepted…. Time and place, and the
• circumstances and relation between parties are considered

• ii) Offensive-- if the plaintiff has not expressly or impliedly consented to
• it. Thus, even if the contact is not harmful… it can still potential be offensive—just
• ask what a reasonable person would consider “customary contact”.

• iii) Harmful—anything contact they causes
• bodily injury

Intentional attempt to place another person in a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery (harmful or offensive contact)

A. Intentional

• B. Reasonable Apprehension
• Apprehension= expectation/anticipation; does not require fear

• (1) One may reasonably apprehend even if they
• can defend themselves. Size of person no mater.

i) Knowledge of Assault IS Required

ii) D’s apparent ability to act is sufficient… actual ability irrelevant

iii) Words Alone Not Enough: Act or Reputation Required

• iv) Conditional Threat usually NOT
• Assault

• C. Immediate battery
• Future: Threats of future contact are not assault.

--Distance: if D is too far away to do harm then no assault

• --Preparation: for a future harmful act then no assault

An Intentional unlawful confinement to a bound area against the will of the person

• 1. Intentional
• 2. Unlawful
• 3. Confinement to a bound area
• 4. Against the will of the person

Knowledge Usually Required but Recollection is Not: P must be aware of confinement

(1) If P cannot recollect the confinement… If he was conscious/aware of the confinement at the time, still False Imprisonment


ii) 2 Jurisdictions:

(1) Restatement: P must be either aware of confinement OR harmed by it

(2) NY: P must be aware of imprisonment

• iii) Submission to persuasion or consent is not false imprisonment but instead a
• privilege -- if a person is allowed to leave at any
• time but decides to stay, then there is no FI

• i) Physical Barriers:
• Bound area can be large or small

ii) Physical Force:

iii) Threats of Force:

iv) Unreasonable Escape/exit

(1) Unaware of existence of escape and escape not apparent

(2) Involves exposure of the person, material harm to the clothing, or danger of substantial harm to another. **loss of clothing, loss of life or limb**

v) Retention of Plaintiff’s Property or Family Members (i.e. son/daughter):

Avoidable Consequence Rule: If the only means of escape could causephysical danger to plaintiff, and he could remain 'imprisoned' w/o any risk ofharm, he may NOT recover for injuries he suffers in making his escape

Confinement must be w/o adequate legal justification; A false arrest may constitute false imprisonment

False arrest-one is taken into custody by a person who claims but does not have proper legal authority.

• (i) A private citizen who aids a police officer in making a false arrest
• can be held liable to plaintiff for FI. If, however, the police officer
• requests assistance, the private citizen will not be liable unless he knows the
• arrest is an unlawful one.

(b) Conviction of the crime for the arrest is a complete defense to a claim of false arrest

Shop Keeper’s Privilege- merchant allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter if:

i) Reasonable amount of time

ii) In a reasonable manner

iii) With a reasonable belief that they have committed the particular crime

Intentional or reckless act causing severe emotional distress to another through extreme and outrageous conduct.

• 1. Intentional or Reckless
• i) Intent:
• Specific OR Substantial Certainty

• ii) Reckless:
• General intent; Acting in conscious disregard for a high probability
• (substantial certainty) emotional distress will result

• 2. Severe Emotional Distress
• i) No reasonable person could be expected to endure
• ii) Actual Damages Required:

• 3. Extreme and Outrageous
• i) Conduct exceeds all bounds of reasonable society

4. Causal Connection

• A) Threat to loved ones and things of great
• attachment may= IIED

• C) Fear of
• contracting a disease, without
• actual exposure to it is not IIED

• D) Conduct
• directed at third party/bystander

i) Liable if…Actor aware of bystander presence

• ii) Liable if…Actor aware of bystander presence and
• intends to cause IIED.

• iii) Liable if…Actor aware of bystander, does not
• intend to cause IIED, court considers the substantial certainty actor knew IIED
• would result.

• iv) NOT Liable…Actor
• not aware of bystander & does not intend to cause IIED.

i) Intent: Specific OR Substantial Certainty

ii) Reckless: General intent; Acting in conscious disregard for a high probability (substantial certainty) emotional distress will result

i) No reasonable person could be expected to endure

ii) Actual Damages Required: (Objective Standard) actual damages caused by the extreme and outrageous conduct

• (1) Severity of damages determine whether
• recovery is possible & amount of recovery

(2) Merely crying, upset, uncomfort is insufficient

Conduct exceeds all bounds of decency tolerated by a reasonable society

ii) Court considers surroundings and personality/sensitivity of plaintiff

• (1) Common carriers—a higher standard of care—business which
• transport persons, goods, or messages for compensation)

An intentional unlawful physical invasion onto, under, or above another’s land.

• A) INTENTIONAL
• Specific, Substantial Certainty, Transferred
• Mistake does not negate intent. Unless the mistake is induced by the plaintiff

• B) UNLAWFUL
• Socially useful/ beneficial to P does not negate liability/intent.
• Privileged entry is limited by time, space, and purpose.

C) PHYSICAL INVASION/ENTRY—applies to people & chattels

• D) UNTO, UNDER, ABOVE LAND
• Airline Privilege

Do not have to prove actual damages. Every intentional trespass infers some damage… even if only treading down of grass occurred.

• i) If no actual (compensatory) damages, then
• the court will award nominal damages.

ii) Sometimes punitive damages awarded-

Damages caused by trespasser need not be foreseeable to be compensable

Intentional intermeddling of another’s chattel, which (1) impairs the chattel’s condition or value OR (2) deprives the possessor use of the chattel for a substantial time.

A) INTENTIONAL

• Specific, Substantial Certainty, Transferred
• Mistake does not negate liability for trespass to chattels

• B) INTERMEDDLING OF ANOTHER’S CHATTEL
• personal property (tangible, movable property)…

• C) IMPAIRS CHATTEL’S CONDITION OR VALUE
• Actual damages required
• D) DEPRIVES THE POSSESSOR…FOR A SUBSTANTIAL TIME

Intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which seriously interferes with the right of the true owner to control it so that the actor may justifiably be required to pay for the full value of the chattel.

• 1. INTENTIONAL
• Specific or Substantial Certainty
• Good Faith does not negate

• 2. DOMINION OR CONTROL
• Applies to only personal property

• 3. SERIOUSLY INTERFERES
• Using a chattel in a manner exceeding authorization=conversion

Good Faith—does not negate

(2) Good faith purchasers-- An innocent purchaser cannot obtain a title from a thief b/c thief does not have title to convey. The purchaser acts at her peril and may be sued in conversion by the TO.

• (a) However, the good faith purchaser is protected under goods obtained by fraud. Ask: is
• this fraudulent?

Value for Conversion: full value of property

i) Nominal damages sufficient. No actual damages but interference serious enough for nominal damages.

ii) Market value of the good at the time & place of conversion determines value.

iii) Punitive damages= Malicious act

iv) Sentimental damages=emotional harm.

v) Creative Efforts=value of time

(1) Generally ideas or information are not subject to legal protection, except where they are: (LLIST)

(a) Trade Secrets

(b) Labor & Inventive Genius

(c) Literary Works

(d) Scientific Research

B. Reasonable Apprehension

• Apprehension= expectation/anticipation; does not require fear
• i) Knowledge of Assault IS Required
• ii) D’s apparent ability to act is sufficient… actual ability irrelevant
• iii) Words Alone Not Enough: Act or Reputation Required
• iv) Conditional Threat usually NOTAssault