SUMMARY OF LAST CLASS DOCTRINE OF EXTENDED CONSEQUENCES TYPES OF FAULT (INCLUDING WILLFUL, WANTON, RECKLESS) CHILD AND PARENT LIABILITY THE INSANITY RULE AND INTENT (POLMATIER) THE “DUAL INTENT” RULE (WHITE)

FURTHER EXPLORING “FAULT” AND INTENT: WHITE v. MUNIZ THE POSSIBILITIES: 1.INTENT TO CAUSE HARMFUL/OFFENSIVE CONTACT 2.INTENT TO CAUSE CONTACT THAT TURNS OUT HARMFUL/OFFENSIVE 3.INTENT TO CAUSE CONTACT THAT REASONABLE PERSON WOULD UNDERSTAND WOULD BE HARMFUL

ASSAULT ELEMENTS INTEREST PROTECTED CULLISON (59) THE ALLEGED ASSAULT APPLYING THE ELEMENTS

APPREHENSION KOFFMAN (63) SOME QUESTIONS: 1. INFER APPREHENSION? 2. COURT’S REASONING 3. COULD P ALLEGE APPREHENSION?

THE RULES ON ASSAULT 1.TRADITIONAL RULE: MERE WORDS ARE NOT ENOUGH. 2.REASONABLE APPREHENSION 3.DICKENS (P. 64 NOTE 4): APPREHENSION OF IMMINENT BATTERY 4.BATTERY AS “INCLUDING” ASSAULT HYPO: SLEEPING BEAUTY AGAIN 5DAMAGES FOR ASSAULT 6. HYPO: THE DISGUSTED STUDENT

FALSE IMPRISONMENT ELEMENTS 1. INTENT 2. ACTUAL CONFINEMENT 3. KNOWLEDGE OF CONFINEMENT 4. AGAINST P’S WILL McCANN (65) FACTS INDICATING CONFINEMENT?

FLESHING OUT FALSE IMPRISONMENT 1.HYPO: THE WESTERN MOVIE 2.HYPO: THE OLD T.V. SHOW 3.HYPO: THE STUDENT ACTIVISTS 4.HYPO: THE LEGAL WRITING PAPER 5.HYPO: THE FIGHTING NEIGHBORS 6.HYPO: THE BLOCKED DOOR 7.HYPO: THE NICE POLICE OFFICER 8.HYPO: THE AIRPLANE RIDE

TORTS AGAINST PROPERTY: TRESPASS TO LAND ELEMENTS: (1) INTENT (2) ENTRY INTEREST PROTECTED INTENT NEEDED: MERE INTENT TO ENTER

TRESPASS TO LAND (Cont.) ENTRY: ACTUAL ENTRY OR FAILURE TO VACATE PERSON NEED NOT ENTER HYPO: THE FORGOTTEN CEMENT FENCE POST

TRESPASS TO CHATTELS and CONVERSION INTERFERENCE WITH CHATTELS KEY : EXTENT OF THE INTERFERENCE ELEMENTS: CONVERSION (1) INTENT TO EXERCISE SUB. DOM. (2) EXERCISE OF SUB. DOMINION COMPARE: MERE INTERMEDDLING

TRESPASS TO CHATTELS and CONVERSION (Cont.) DIFFERENCE IN REMEDY ACTUAL DAMAGE REQUIREMENT FOR TRESPASS TO CHATTELS THE DIVIDING LINE: DEGREE HYPOS: P. 71 (a through d) CONCEPT OF PARASITIC DAMAGE

TRESPASS TO CHATTELS and CONVERSION (End) DOMINION BY CONTROLLING ACCESS HYPO: THE CAR KEYS CONVERSION: GOOD FAITH AND BONA FIDE PURCHASERS B TAKES FROM A AND SELLS TO C 1. GOOD FAITH OF PURCHASER IRRELEVANT 2. EXCEPTION: FRAUD

CONVERSION: THE “THREE PARTY” SITUATION SITUATION: (1) B CONVERTS FROM A AND THEN (2) SELLS TO C, WHO DOESN’T KNOW OF THE CONVERSION GENERAL RULE: C IS LIABLE EXCEPTION: BONA FIDE PURCHASE IN GOOD FAITH REASON: B GETS “TITLE”

THE MULTI-STATE BAR EXAMINATION NOTE: The Torts questions should be answered according to principles of general applicability. Examinees are to assume that there is no applicable statute unless otherwise specified… I. Intentional Torts A. Harms to the person: assault, battery, false imprisonment, infliction of mental distress B. Harms to property interests: trespass to land and chattels, conversion

SAMPLE QUESTION FROM MULTISTATE BAR EXAM 1.Neighbor, who lived next door to Homeowner, went into Homeowner’s garage without permission and borrowed Homeowner’s chain saw. Neighbor used the saw to clear broken branches from the trees on Neighbor’s property. After he finished, Neighbor noticed broken branches on Homeowner’s trees that were in danger of falling on Homeowner’s roof. While Neighbor was cutting Homeowner’s branches, the saw broke. Homeowner sues neighbor for conversion. Will Homeowner prevail? (A) Yes, for the actual damage to the saw. (B) Yes, for the value of the saw before Neighbor borrowed it. (C) No, because when the saw broke Neighbor was using it to benefit Homeowner (D) No, because Neighbor did not intend to keep the saw.