What is a Tort (Lecture) Part 6

Intent • Intent to do the act is required – Not intent to do the harm that resulted from the act • Trespass to land example • Transferred intent doctrine: – law doesn’t let those with bad aim off the hook • Intent also relevant to self-defense – Note difference between defense and retaliation; selfdefense never involves shooting someone in the back/someone retreating Assault • • • • • • • • • Intent + an act by D or threat of an action which puts an individual in reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm Causation Damages Lack of consent Tip: be sure to look for assault and battery together, but be clear about the different facts that make the claim lie (i.e. work) False Imprisonment • an unlawful restraint of an individual’s personal liberty or freedom of locomotion. – Imprisonment: “any lawful exercise or show of force by which a person is compelled to remain where he does not wish to remain or to go where he does not wish to go.” • Requires actual or legal intent to restrain – Words, acts, or both can restrain. – Doesn’t require force. • Voluntary confinement will negate false imprisonment. Sidebar on the “Elements” I Elements, version A Specific intent by the ᶭ Unlawful actual restraint A bounded area Knowledge of the restraint or imprisonment while it’s happening – Some courts add requirement of attempt to escape where that’s reasonable – – – – Elements, version B • an unlawful restraint of an individual’s personal liberty or freedom of locomotion. • Requires actual or legal intent to restrain – Words, acts, or both can restrain. – Doesn’t require force. • Voluntary confinement will negate false imprisonment Sidebar on the “Elements” II • Notice how the elements I’ve listed for False Imprisonment are slightly different, if overall mostly consistent? – Differences though can matter, e.g. escape; emphasis on bounded area, etc • That’s why you cite cases (IT VARIES BY JURISDICTION!) & don’t get too attached to hornbooks that have abstracted black letter law IIED • Conduct must be intentional or reckless*; • Conduct must be extreme and outrageous; • There must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress; • The emotional distress must be severe. What are extreme & outrageous? • Was Defendant’s conduct continuous or ongoing? • Did D’s conduct involve an abuse of authority? – Supervisor/employee (but some latitude for stressful work environments) – Professor/student – Landlord/tenant – Creditor/debtor • Did Defendant knowingly exploit Plaintiff’s vulnerable condition or particular sensitivity? – “Pressing P’s buttons” = bad fact against D Recall the Elements of the IT • Battery: – an act by D with intent to (a) inflict harm or (b) conduct offensive touching + causation [harm presumed] • Assault: – an act by D or threat of an action which puts an individual in reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm • False Imprisonment: – Unlawful restraint, often through force or threat of force, that confines someone to a bounded area (however big that area). Person has to know they’re restrained • IIED: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – Intentional or reckless conduct that is extreme and outrageous that causes severe emotional distress • Trespass: – intent + unlawful intrusion on or invasion of someone’s land Recap/Testing Hypo 2 • Peter is crossing the street; Joe approaches the intersection in his car and accelerates, thinking it will be funny if this guy in the crosswalk [Peter] thinks he's about to get hit. Joe brakes at the last minute, stopping the car just a few feet from with brakes squeaking loudly. • What tort(s) if any? – Probably assault. – No Battery (no touching) • What effect, if true, would the following facts have: – Joe had no intention of harming Peter • Irrelevant: specific intent to harm not necessary for either battery or assault – Peter did not see or hear Joe • No assault: reasonable apprehension not present – Peter had a weak heart and had a heart attack and immediately died • Irrelevant for liability unless proximate cause limits liability here (unlikely). Irrelevant for damages because of eggshell plaintiff rule. Intentional Torts Takeaways • Intent is often the one hard issue – Several approaches to intent, but key for now: • Don’t need specific intent (i.e. intent to cause that harm—except for with false imprisonment) • Application of ITs’ elements is restrictive/rigid • Other than IIED, catchall category, scope enforced through rarer use