Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

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:

TORTS FINAL OUTLINE INTENTIONAL TORTS

*

*

*

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

PERSONAL INVASIONS BATTERY

* 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)

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

* 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)

DEFENSES TO PERSONAL INVASIONS PRIVILEGE/CONSENT

* 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?
SELF-DEFENSE

* 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

DEFENSE OF OTHERS

* 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

PROPERTY INVASIONS TRESPASS TO LAND

* 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

CONVERSION

* 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

DEFENSES TO PROPERTY INVASIONS PRIVATE NECESSITY

* 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.