Aim: How do we examine the law of Intentional Torts Do Now: Juliet is gazing at the stars from her balcony, exclaiming dreamily, “Romeo, Romeo, where art thou, Romeo?” A voice from below responds, “Here I am, you moron, give me a hand-up.” Juliet looks down and sees Romeo climbing up the balcony. Before she has a chance to help, Romeo loses his footing, and falls, breaks his arm. Juliet races downstairs and tries to set the arm, even though Romeo tells her that she should wait for a doctor. Juliet makes the break much worse by moving his arm the wrong way. Has Juliet done anything wrong?

Intentional Torts A. Intentional Torts Against a Person B. Intentional Interference with Property C. Defenses to Intentional Torts

Unit Objectives: Understand the role of intent in analyzing in intentional tort scenarios. Understand the doctrine of transferred intent. Define the four types of intentional torts against the person: Battery, Assault, False Imprisonment, Infliction of Emotional Distress, Given case scenarios determine whether or nor a tort against a person has occurred.

Today’s Objectives UNDERSTANDING INTENT UNDERSTANDING TRANSFERRED INTENT EVALUATING SCENARIOS TO DETERMINE IF THE ACTOR ACTED WITH INTENT SO THAT HE OR SHE MAY BE LIABLE FOR HIS OR HER ACTIONS

Intent An intentional tort is committed only if the defendant acted with INTENT. General Principal: The intent must be at least to bring some sort of physical or mental effect upon another person. No intent to Harm is necessary: the intent does not include a desire to harm the person. Substantial Certainty: A tort is considered intention if the actor didn’t desire the act, but knew with substantially certainty that the act would occur as a result of his/her actions.

Intent to Commit a Different Tort A person who intends to commit a one intentional tort and in fact commits another is liable for the tort actually committed, regardless of the torts involved. Example: If A actually hits B while trying to subject him to false imprisonment, A is liable for battery.

Transferred Intent The doctrine of transferred intent holds that as long as the defendant held the necessary intent with respect to one person, he will be held to have committed an intentional tort against any other person who happens to be injured.

Was there intent? Determine whether a slap given by A to B’s face is a battery: 1. A moves his hand as a gesture through the air, but did not intend to either touch or frighten B. 2. A intended to hit B, but did not intend to harm her?

Was there intent? Consider Garratt v. Dailey, 279 P.2d 1090 (Wash. 1955) Facts: Five year old Brian Dailey (D) pulled a chair out from under Ruth Garratt just as she was about to sit causing her to fall and break her hip. Garratt brought suit for personal injuries and alleged that Dailey had acted deliberately. The trial court entered judgment for Dailey and found that he had not intended to injure Garratt. The court nevertheless made a finding of $11,000 in damages in case the judgment was overturned on appeal. Dailey appealed. Issues: 1. In regards to the intentional tort of battery, is the element of intent satisfied if the defendant knows with a substantial certainty that his act will result in a harmful or offensive contact? 2. Can a five year old child be liable for an intentional tort?

Revisit the Do Now Did Juliet actions demonstrate intent so that she may be liable for committing an intentional tort against Romeo?