TORT LAW INTENTIONAL TORTS

Criminal Law v Tort Law Recap A crime is wrong against all of society that gives rise to sanctions usually imprisonment. A crime is wrong against all of society that gives rise to sanctions usually imprisonment. A tort is a civil ‘private’ wrong where the plaintiff seeks compensation from the defendant. A tort is a civil ‘private’ wrong where the plaintiff seeks compensation from the defendant. Prosecution v. Plaintiff ? Prosecution v. Plaintiff ? Burden of Proof? Burden of Proof?

Torts Overview The law imposes a general duty on everyone to refrain from injuring others, and to refrain from violating the rights of others. The law imposes a general duty on everyone to refrain from injuring others, and to refrain from violating the rights of others. A tort is a breach of a duty imposed by law which results in injury to another. A tort is a breach of a duty imposed by law which results in injury to another. When the plaintiff can prove a defendant’s breach of a duty has caused him/her and an injury, the defendant is held responsible, and is required to pay damages to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff can prove a defendant’s breach of a duty has caused him/her and an injury, the defendant is held responsible, and is required to pay damages to the plaintiff.

Types of Damages Compensatory: Compensatory: to place the victim in the position he/she was before the tort was committed. to place the victim in the position he/she was before the tort was committed. Punitive : Punitive : Punitive : Punitive : to punishment the defendant for or to make an example of the defendant to others in a similar position. to punishment the defendant for or to make an example of the defendant to others in a similar position.

Types of Torts Intentional Torts Intentional Torts Negligence Torts Negligence Torts Strict Liability Torts Strict Liability Torts

What is an intentional tort? An intentional tort is a breach of the legal duty to refrain from committing intentional acts which cause injury to others. Most intentional torts involve injury to the physical person of another, injury to another’s reputation, injury to another’s property, or interference with business relationships. An intentional tort is a breach of the legal duty to refrain from committing intentional acts which cause injury to others. Most intentional torts involve injury to the physical person of another, injury to another’s reputation, injury to another’s property, or interference with business relationships.

INTENT Intent is the first essential element of any intentional tort. If there is no intent, there is no intentional tort. Intent, as used in tort law, does not require a hostile or evil motive. Rather, it means that (1) the actor desires to cause the consequences of his act, or that (2) he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from the act. Examples:

If A fires a gun in the middle of the Mojave Desert, he intends to fire the gun, but when the bullet hits B, who is in the desert without A’s knowledge, A does not intend that result. A has not committed an intentional tort against B. If A fires a gun in the middle of the Mojave Desert, he intends to fire the gun, but when the bullet hits B, who is in the desert without A’s knowledge, A does not intend that result. A has not committed an intentional tort against B.

Types of Intentional Torts Intentional Injure to a Person Intentional Injure to a Person Intentional Harm of “Real” Property Intentional Harm of “Real” Property Intentional Harm of “Intellectual Property” Intentional Harm of “Intellectual Property”

BATTERY Essential elements of a battery: Essential elements of a battery: Intent Intent D must set in motion a force directed towards the P which results in physical contact with the person of the P or something closely associated with the person of the P. D must set in motion a force directed towards the P which results in physical contact with the person of the P or something closely associated with the person of the P. Such force exercised towards the P must be without the P’s consent and against her will. Such force exercised towards the P must be without the P’s consent and against her will.

Garratt v. Dailey Problem 19.1 Problem 19.1 P, an arthritic woman, was about to sit down in a chair when the D, aged five years, nine months, suddenly and without warning, pulled the chair out from under her. P fell to the ground and was injured. P sued D for damages in battery. May she recover? P, an arthritic woman, was about to sit down in a chair when the D, aged five years, nine months, suddenly and without warning, pulled the chair out from under her. P fell to the ground and was injured. P sued D for damages in battery. May she recover?

Yes. Even a joke may result in a battery if the essential elements are present. The pulling of the chair was intentional and done with substantial certainty that P would attempt to sit where the chair had been. The removal of the chair caused the physical contact between P’s body and the ground. The act was without P’s consent and against her will. These facts constitute a battery for which P may recover in tort. Yes. Even a joke may result in a battery if the essential elements are present. The pulling of the chair was intentional and done with substantial certainty that P would attempt to sit where the chair had been. The removal of the chair caused the physical contact between P’s body and the ground. The act was without P’s consent and against her will. These facts constitute a battery for which P may recover in tort.

Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel P attended a buffet style luncheon with others. P was standing in line waiting to be served when D snatched the plate from P’s hand and shouted that P, a Negro, could not be served. P sued for battery. May he recover? P attended a buffet style luncheon with others. P was standing in line waiting to be served when D snatched the plate from P’s hand and shouted that P, a Negro, could not be served. P sued for battery. May he recover?

Yes. Although P was not actually touched, the unpermitted and intentional taking of the plate constituted a battery. P was permitted to recover actual damages which included mental suffering and exemplary damages for D’s malicious conduct. Yes. Although P was not actually touched, the unpermitted and intentional taking of the plate constituted a battery. P was permitted to recover actual damages which included mental suffering and exemplary damages for D’s malicious conduct.

ASSAULT Any unexcused and intentional act that causes another person to be apprehensive of immediate harm. Any unexcused and intentional act that causes another person to be apprehensive of immediate harm. Essential elements: Essential elements: Intent Intent D must set in motion a force directed towards the P. Mere words, looks, or gestures, without more, however violent or insulting, is not an assault. D must set in motion a force directed towards the P. Mere words, looks, or gestures, without more, however violent or insulting, is not an assault.

D must be able to carry out the threat immediately, and there must be some affirmative act to do so. D must be able to carry out the threat immediately, and there must be some affirmative act to do so. To the P as a reasonable person, there must be the apparent present ability to inflict immediate bodily injury. To the P as a reasonable person, there must be the apparent present ability to inflict immediate bodily injury. Problem 19.2 Problem 19.2

Cucinotti v. Ortmann P filed suit alleging that D displayed a blackjack and stated that he would beat the P unless P left the premises. Has P stated a cause of action for assault?

No. The mere possession of blackjacks by D and others with him did not convert the unactionable words into a cause of action. To convert a threat into an assault, there must be some act to show that a battery will follow immediately. The complaint did not allege that the blackjacks were shown to P in a manner that would amount to an offer to commit a battery. Therefore, P’s complaint was dismissed. No. The mere possession of blackjacks by D and others with him did not convert the unactionable words into a cause of action. To convert a threat into an assault, there must be some act to show that a battery will follow immediately. The complaint did not allege that the blackjacks were shown to P in a manner that would amount to an offer to commit a battery. Therefore, P’s complaint was dismissed.

Allen v. Hannaford P rented an apartment from D, but was behind in her rent payments. While P was having her furniture moved out of the apartment, D pointed a pistol at P and threatened to shoot her in order to prevent P from moving her furniture. P sued D for assault. D contended no assault was committed because of the lack of evidence that the pistol was loaded. Is this an assault? P rented an apartment from D, but was behind in her rent payments. While P was having her furniture moved out of the apartment, D pointed a pistol at P and threatened to shoot her in order to prevent P from moving her furniture. P sued D for assault. D contended no assault was committed because of the lack of evidence that the pistol was loaded. Is this an assault?

Yes. Yes. Even if there were no actual present ability to shoot P, the apparent present ability is just as effective in causing fright as though the gun were loaded. Actual ability is not necessary. Therefore, D committed the tort of assault.

False Imprisonment The intentional un-privileged, non- consensual, confinement of another by physical barriers or by physical force or threats of force The intentional un-privileged, non- consensual, confinement of another by physical barriers or by physical force or threats of force Problem 19.4 Problem 19.4

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS Essential elements: Essential elements: The defendant intended to cause the plaintiff emotional distress The defendant intended to cause the plaintiff emotional distress A reasonable person would consider the defendants actions extreme and outrageous A reasonable person would consider the defendants actions extreme and outrageous The plaintiff suffers emotional distress The plaintiff suffers emotional distress A reasonable person would consider the plaintiff distress severe A reasonable person would consider the plaintiff distress severe i.e. Tyler Clemente Case i.e. Tyler Clemente Case

Defamation A false, unprivileged statement of fact communicated to a third person, which causes damage to a person’s or a product’s reputation. A false, unprivileged statement of fact communicated to a third person, which causes damage to a person’s or a product’s reputation. Slander- transitory, oral or spoken Slander- transitory, oral or spoken Libel – more permanent, written form Libel – more permanent, written form Intent? – Injury? – To reputation by exposing to hatred, ridicule or contempt

Defamation- Public Figures Public figures: must show actual malice on the part of tortfeasor Public figures: must show actual malice on the part of tortfeasor Media has a qualified privilege to defame public figures Problem 19.5 Actual malice: the intent to specifically destroy the plaintiff’s public reputation