Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Torts I Outline

Law Outlines > Torts I Outlines

This is an extract of our Torts I document, which we sell as part of our Torts I Outlines collection written by the top tier of Thomas Jefferson School Of Law students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Torts I Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:





CAUSATION ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH (SHIT HAPPENS) D must desire to bring about a particular result No liability without fault CONCEPT OF INTENT o Desire or Knowledge to a substantial certainty o Recklessness is not enough o Act must be intentional or substantially certain, but the consequences need not be (Intent to bring about specific harm is not required) o Motive is irrelevant o Act must be volitional - acting under your own power or direction


* Intentional infliction of a harmful or offensive bodily contact o Intent
? Desire or knowledge to substantial certainty to cause a harmful or offensive bodily contact o Harmful or Offensive
? Causes pain or bodily damage - injurious
? Offensive - unauthorized o Contact with Plaintiff
? Touching of plaintiff's person
? Or something so closely connected to plaintiff as to indirectly touch

* Plaintiff does not have to have actual awareness of the contact at the time it occurs ASSAULT

* Intentional causing of an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact o Intent
? Desire or knowledge to a substantial certainty to:

* Create Apprehension (threaten) OR

* Make contact
? Desire to cause injury not required o Inducing Apprehension
? Reasonable anticipation, not fear


? Objective standard
? Plaintiff must be aware of threatened contact o Imminence
? Apparent ability to carry out threat immediately
? Threats of future [?] assault
? Threat does not have to be harm, just contact Normally words alone are not enough - need an overt act (except in exceptional circumstances, past behavior)


* Intentional infliction of confinement o Intent
? Desire or knowledge to a substantial certainty that confinement will result o "Confinement" (Consequences)
? Restraint of P within limited bounds
? Restraint must overcome P's will
? No restraint if reasonable means of escape exists
? Unreasonable if:

* Dangerous

* P is not aware of escape, and it's not reasonably apparent

* Would cause material harm to P's valuable property

* Would cause harm to another
? P must be aware of confinement

* Can be caused by threats or use of legal authority INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

* Intentional or reckless infliction, by extreme and outrageous conduct, of severe emotional or mental distress (even in the absence of physical harm) o Intent
? Desire or knowledge to a substantial certainty
? To cause P emotional distress or a conscious disregard that emotional distress will likely result o "Extreme and Outrageous"
? Must exceed all bounds of conduct tolerated by society
? Objective standard
? Insults not enough o Actual Severe Distress
? Severe enough to seek medical aid (normally no bodily harm required)


* Express o Actual words, written form

* Implied o Objective standard o From conduct o From silence under certain circumstances (emergency) o Custom o Course of conduct o Game o Does P have capacity to consent?
o Has D exceeded scope of consent?
o Was consent obtained through fraud?

* Privilege by defendant to use reasonable force to prevent threatened unauthorized bodily contact or confinement o Privilege
? What a reasonable person in D's place would have believed in the circumstances o Apparent Necessity
? No privilege for threats of future harm
? Once threat has passed, privilege is gone o Only for Protection
? Protect himself (P) against harm
? No force in retaliation (after P is disarmed or danger is past) o Degree of Force
? Force must be what appeared reasonably necessary under the circumstances
? Weigh advantages and disadvantages of amount of force to be used
? Deadly force can be used when there is a reasonable apprehension that deadly force will be used by P o Retreat
? Duty to retreat if safe prior to use of deadly force except in D's home


* Privilege arises for D to use force to protect another when the other is actually threatened with immediate contact

* Amount of force used is whatever the person being aided might have reasonably used

* Reasonable mistake o Courts are split o Some say reasonable mistake not privileged
? D steps into shoes of the person being aided o Some say reasonable mistake is privileged
? If it reasonably appeared victim needed defense, privilege arises DEFENSE OF PROPERTY

* Privilege for defendant to use force (batter) to resist plaintiff's trespass to land or chattel

* Must be exercised properly: o Verbal demand first unless request to stop will be useless o Whatever force appears reasonably necessary to protect defendant's property short of deadly force
? Effect of mistake

* If property owner mistakenly, but reasonably, believes force is necessary to protect property, use of force is privileged o Except when the trespasser has necessity to trespass
? Since D is not privileged to use deadly force to defend property, D cannot expel trespasser when it would expose them to serious physical harm and/or death RECAPTURE OF CHATTEL

* Privilege for defendant to use reasonable force when: o P gains possession of D's chattel wrongfully o D promptly discovers dispossession and promptly attempts to recover o Reasonable force must be exercised under circumstances
? Demand first
? No deadly force used to retake property
? Since D is in the posture of the aggressor,

* Mistake is not privileged


* D intentionally enters P's land, without permission o Intent
? Volitional act that causes D to intrude on P's land

* Reasonableness of mistake as to ownership is irrelevant

* Motive to trespass is irrelevant o Entry
? Direct

* D actually enters
? Indirect

* D causes object or 3rd person to enter
? Invasion must be tangible o Property
? Land, structures on land, anything attached to land regarded as real property (trees, crops, etc.)
? Reasonable airspace and land above and below surface o Possession of P
? Anyone whose possessory interest is superior to D's TRESPASS TO CHATTEL

* Intentional interference with a person's use or possession of a chattel that results in damages o Intent
? Volitional act that results in intermeddling with P's chattel
? Desire to trespass not necessary o Interference
? Something only the rightful possessor is entitled to do
? Requires trespassory dispossession or intermeddling

* Dispossession - act inconsistent with P's right to possession

* Intermeddling - conduct that doesn't challenge ownership but disrupts or damages chattel o P's Chattel
? P has possessory interest greater than D o Damages
? Actual damages required (don't have to pay full value)
? Damage to chattel or damage to P by depriving use
? If D's act only intermeddles - no trespass to chattel


* Intentional interference with P's possession of ownership of property that is so substantial that D should be required to pay the property's full value o Intent
? D does not have to intend to convert
? Only to do the act that affects the chattel o Substantial Interference
? Some act inconsistent with P's right of dominion

* Appropriation o D takes possession from P

* Destruction

* Factors of seriousness of interference: o Extent and duration of D's control o Wrongful motive o Amount of resulting interference w/P's right of control o Harm done to chattel o Refusing to surrender chattel to P o P's Chattel
? P has possessory interest greater than D o Damages
? Harm done to chattel or to P so great as to justify forced sale

* Market value at time and place of conversion TRANSFERRED INTENT

* If D held the necessary intent with respect to person A, he will be held to have committed an intentional tort against any other person who happens to be injured


* Defendant has privilege to trespass to plaintiff's land, chattel, or convert to protect defendant's more valuable property o Privilege arises when:
? Emergency threatens defendant's property, life, or the life or more valuable property of another o Reasonable mistake is privileged o Privilege is incomplete
? Defendant is not a trespasser, so plaintiff does not have privilege to eject in defense of property
? But defendant is liable for damage caused to property

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Torts I Outlines.