This is an extract of our Intentional Torts document, which we sell as part of our Long Torts Outline collection written by the top tier of University Of Virginia School Of Law students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Long Torts Outline. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Intentional Torts a. Battery o Unlawful Contact: deemed so by its inappropriateness to the time, place and circumstances. IF RESTATEMENT JURISDICTION, MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY CERTAIN CONTACT WILL HARMWhite v. University of Idaho: Air Piano, inappropriate to the time, place, and circumstances
Putting a series of events in motion that you know will cause harmful contact suffices (Garret v. Dailey), moving chair before sitting
? Some things are not harmful or offensive if there is an "implied license" that they may occur (Vosburg) o Intent:
? If D acts with an intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact, it does not matter that the probability of harm or offense is low, liability is imposed if what is intended occurs. MUST BE ATLEAST SUBSTANTIALLY CERTAIN THE CONTACT WILL RESULT
? Jurisdictions are split on whether you must intend to harm (Restatement) or just intend the contact (Vosburg)
? The fact that the injury resulted to another than was intended does not relieve the D from responsibility, Intent to harm someone is enough (Talmage v. Smith)
? Mentally Impaired alzheimer's patients can intend contact, but probably not harm, so liability depends on jurisdiction (Wagner v. Utah [Vosburg] White v. Muniz [Restatement])
? Tobacco company is not liable for second hand smoke because they did not know with a substantial degree of certainty it would contact any particular non smoker.a. Contact w/ person different than intended i. Talmage v. Smith a. The fact that the injury resulted to another than was intended does not relieve the defendant from responsibility.
2. Cases Contrasting Restatement v. Vosburg Approach a. Wagner v. Utah: Embraced Vosburg approach to battery in that it held a mentally impaired man who attached another person without reason was liable for battery since he intended the contact with the defendant. Whether or not he intended to b. harm the plaintiff was irrelevant.
c. White v. Muniz: Embraced the Restatement approach in that the court did not hold a mentally impaired Alzheimer's patient liable for battery for assaulting his caregiver because "the law requires that he both intended the contact and that he intended it to be harmful or offensive".
3. Indirect/Unconventional Battery a. White v. University of Idaho (Air Piano) i. Is the act of playing the air piano on the back of someone unlawful?
1. YES, if the contact is inappropriate to the time, place, or circumstance, which it was. b. Garret v. Dailey (Moving Chair): Woman brought suit against a five year old boy for moving her chair as she had begun the process of sitting down, causing her to fall and hit the ground, fracturing her hip. i. Court held that the boy's action constituted battery. Battery= intentional infliction of a harmful bodily contact upon another.
1. If the plaintiff proved that the boy moved the chair while she was in the act of sitting down, the boy's action would have been for the purpose or with the intent of causing the plaintiff's bodily contact with the ground a. A battery would be established if, in addition to the plaintiff's fall, t was proved that when the boy moved the chair, he knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair had been. c. Shaw v. Brown Tobbacco Corp (second-hand smoke): Court held that the defendant Tobacco Company was not liable for battery or the second hand smoke he inhaled and developed lung cancer as a result. Court held that the tobacco company did not know with a substantial degree of certainty that the second hand smoke would touch a particular non-smoker. (If a tobacco corp could be liable for battery, then so could gun manufacturers, knife manufacturers, lead pipe manufacturers etc.) d. Leictman v. WLW Jacor Comm.: Court held that a radio host who intentionally blew smoke in the face of an antismoking advocate was liable for battery since the defendant intended to cause harmful contact. Also held that no matter how trivial the incident, such constitutes a battery even if the damages are only $1. i. Difference between Leictman and Shaw:
1. In Leictman, someone intentionally blew smoke in the face of someone. Someone may have intentionally blew smoke in the face of someone in Shaw as well, but the tobacco company is not liable for that.
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Long Torts Outline.