1. Self-Defense and Defense of Property

2. Self-Defense / Defense of Others
Permits use of reasonable force to defend oneself (or another) against an immediate threat.
Under the Restatement:
Reasonable force is comparable force
Must first exhaust all other reasonably safe options! Self-defense as a last resort.
The rules for these two defenses are similar – a person can use reasonable force to defend against an immediate threat. Thus, if a D commits a battery against P – he intentionally contacts P in a harmful and offensive manner – but D’s conduct was a reasonable response to an immediate threat from the P, he can rely on the defense of self-defense to relieve himself from liability.
Two key things to keep in mind when it comes to the use of force to defend oneself or a third party, all of which we see in the restatement provisions on p –
First, reasonable force is comparable force. If Dean Kaufman throws a handful of pebbles at me, it is not reasonable for me to shoot him with a pistol.
Second, use of force is a last resort – the black letter doctrine of self-defense states that you must exhaust all other reasonably safe options before using force. Such options might include asking the aggressor to stand down, or complying with an aggressor’s demand (for example, if he threatens you with force unless you give him your wallet), if doing so is reasonably safe.

3. Defense of Property
Permits use of reasonable force to defend one’s property against an immediate threat. Imagine: I own a house sitting on a few acres of land, clearly marked “Private Property.” I am sitting on the porch, and Dean Kaufman comes onto my land without permission. I’m holding a shotgun. Should I have the right to shoot at him?

4. Defense of Property
Permits use of reasonable force to defend one’s property against an immediate threat. Imagine: I own a house sitting on a few acres of land, clearly marked “Private Property.” I am sitting on the porch, and Dean Kaufman comes onto my land without permission. I’m holding a shotgun, aim it at him and say, “Get off my property or I’ll shoot.” He keeps approaching Should I have the right to shoot at him?

5. Defense of Property
Serious bodily harm resulted in both Katko and Woodbridge. So why was there no liability in Woodbridge? Consider:
Policy reasons
Factual distinctions between dogs and guns
Factual distinctions between these cases

6. Defense And Mistake
What if you are mistaken about the threat or the degree of force needed for defense?
Self-Defense: Excessive force is excused if you have an actual belief, reasonable in nature that it was necessary to protect yourself
Defense of Property: A reasonable mistake won’t excuse excessive force
Why is the law harsher for defense of property?

7. Problem: Defending Haffke
Imagine that you are a defense lawyer in Iowa, and Haffke, a potential client, comes in.
The only precedent you have to rely on is Katko.
How do you distinguish your case from Katko? What facts can you point to in order to defend your client?

8. Necessity

9. The Necessity Defense
No liability for intentional interference with the property interests of an innocent party (i.e., trespass, conversion), if the D can demonstrate that it was necessary to avoid a greater injury.
  Private Necessity: An incomplete defense. The “trespassing” D’s conduct is privileged, but D may be liable for damages.
  Public Necessity: A complete defense; D has no liability for damages.

10. Private Necessity

11. Lessons from Ploof and Vincent

12. Ploof v. Putnam Variation
Ploof moors his boat to Putnam’s dock. Putnam tells Jeeves, “Unmoor Ploof’s boat.”
Before Jeeves is able to unmoor Ploof’s boat, the boat’s lines damage Putnam’s dock.
Is Ploof liable for damages to Putnam’s dock?

13. Vincent v. Lake Erie Variation
The owner of the dock unties the boat to save his property. The boat then crashes into rocks.
Would the dock owner be liable for damage to the boat?

14. Rossi v. DelDuca

15. Rossi v. DelDuca Variation
Rossi is being chased by a Weimeraner. She enters D’s property. D pushes her off the property and into the jaws of the Weimaraner.
Would D be liable for Rossi’s injuries?

16. Rossi v. DelDuca Variation
Rossi is being chased by a Weimeraner. She approaches D’s property, but, seeing D’s Great Danes, is afraid to enter D’s property. As a result, she is bitten by the Weimaraner.
Would D be liable for Rossi’s injuries?

17. Takeaways: Private Necessity
Ploof v. Putnam; Rossi v. DelDuca:
A “trespassing” P who is injured while privileged can seek damages (if D wrongly tries to defend his property and P is harmed thereby).
Vincent v. Lake Erie:
A “trespassing” D who injures P while privileged is not technically liable for the intentional tort, but must pay damages.

18. Public Necessity

19. Public Necessity
Restatement §262: One is privileged to commit an act which would otherwise be a trespass, trespass to chattel, or a conversion if the act is or is reasonably believed to be necessary for the purpose of avoiding a public disaster.

20. Mouse’s Case
If you had property on the barge, and you didn’t know if you were going to be the victim or the beneficiary, what legal rule would you want (or expect)?

21. Comparing Mouse and Vincent
In both Mouse’s Case and Vincent v. Lake Erie, one person’s property was sacrificed for someone else’s benefit.
So why was the beneficiary D in Vincent held liable for damages, whereas in Mouse, the beneficiary Ds were not liable?

22. Public Necessity and Mistake
Struve v. Droge: Defendants invoking the public necessity privilege have to be correct; they are strictly liable for any mistakes.
Why impose liability for such mistakes?
Why not instead apply a rule that protects Ds so long as there’s reasonable grounds for believing there is an emergency (per Restatement 262)?

23. A Doctrinal Question: Do We Need an “Umbrella Tort”?

24. Hypo: Identify the Intentional Torts
Paul has a heart condition; he takes nitroglycerin pills to open his arteries and relieve angina pain. Paul’s nurse, Dustin, seeking to hasten Paul’s death, intentionally places a book on Paul’s nightstand blocking his view so he cannot easily find his pills. Paul awakes in the middle of the night suffering chest pain, and cannot find his pills. Minutes later he suffers a heart attack and dies. What intentional torts might Dustin be liable for?

25. Do We Need an “Umbrella Tort”?
Rest. 3d §5: An actor who intentionally causes physical harm is subject to liability for that harm.
Comment a. The rule of liability in this Section does not replace the doctrines for specific intentional torts, such as battery, assault, false imprisonment, and others. Rather, this Section provides a framework that encompasses many specific torts for intentionally caused physical harm. Rest. 2d remains largely authoritative in explaining the details of the specific torts encompassed by this Section and in specifying the elements and limits of the various affirmative defenses that might be available[.]