Intentional Torts less than the likely accident.

1) id COA-> 2) elements of COA-> 3) define and evaluate pros and cons Standard of Care- OBJECTIVE- a reasonable, prudent person under the
of INTENT-> 4) define and evaluate pros/cons of other elements in def.-> circumstances-
5) define and evaluate pros/cons of each affirmative defense. CUSTOM- reflects cost/ben. Anal, judgment of many, knowledge of risks
♣ intent- substantial certainty/desire to bring about consequences which Est. the floor, but not the ceiling- relevant but not conclusive. Compliance
the law prohibits. with custom is not automatic evid. of Reasonable behavior. still do RP
MOTIVE- irrelevant; mistake does not negate intent. standard.
transferred intent- A, B, FI, T to Land, T to chattel Emergency- immediate and unforeseeable threat not of your own
♣ battery- autonomy- intent to bring about harmful or offensive contact. making. Still a question of RP, just under heightened circumstances.
Must look at sensitivities Lower expectation for D, but does not absolve his activities entirely.
indirect contact with something on the person (glasses) Children- (semi-objective)- Same age, intelligence, and experience
don’t have to be aware of contact. Words alone are not- UNLESS- child engages in adult/inherently dangerous activities, at which
SPLIT- some intent contact has to eventually be harmful or offensive-point judge decides which standard to apply
others say you have to intent contact to be harmful or offensive. Physical Disabilities- take precautions of RP with that disability. Needs
♣ assault- intent to put P in apprehension of imminent harmful or expert testimony to determine reasonableness.
offensive contact Mental Disability- most make no exception for this- SPLIT- some j’s
apprehension? (awareness) imminence? Present ability? Future threat≠ see exception with sudden insanity- 1) no notice; must affect their ability
ass; conditional threats≠ ass; doesn’t matter if contact was made, onlyto 2) know their duties and 3) act prudently.
that P was in apprehen. Professional- an objective minimum stndrd- specialized- higher stnrd
♣ false imprisonment- intentional unlawful restraint through force orexpert testimony is required to show standard.
threat of force that confines someone to a bounded area. Actual damages attorney- damages will result if mistakes are due to 1) want of
need not be proven. Reasonable means of exit (apparent and known knowledge/skill;
to P) 2) want of best judgment 3) want of due care. Must show
≠ F.I. Must be aware of confinement; moral persuasion≠ F.I. future that a diff verdict would have resulted w.o negligence.
threats≠ F.I.; retent° of property= if intent is to confine P and not property.
physician- custom is the standard- degree of know/skill to that of avg.
professional in good standing; done something that reasonable standard
♣ IIED-w/out privilege intentionally causes severe emotional distress in the comm. Forbids; and must show expert testimony (unless common
through extreme or outrageous behavior. D must have known P was knowledge- sponge) locality rule- same local. of comm. SPLIT- (maj)-
present. similar comm. in similar circumstance (min)- ntnl stnrd
outrageous- harming someone esp. vulnerable, repeating acts to someone Informed Consent- duty to inform- lack of consent- batt; lack of full
who can’t leave, physical violence, disclosure- informed consent. SPLIT- (maj) reasonable physician-
Can recover for mutilation of dead body. profess°al standard (malpractice) shows stdrd in comm.- expert
♣ trespass to land- actual intentional physical invasion of land. Doesn’t testimony required. (min)- reasonable patient- (negligence) what RP in
require fences, actual damage, or motive. patient’s situat° would want to know. DR is only responsible for what
Except°s- patient disclosed to her. Must also disclose info about $ and research.
nuisance- actual damages required but not phys. invas° Causation- SPLIT- reasonable patient (objve) v this patient- P testifies
♣ trespass to chattel- intent°al intermeddling with a chattel in possess° Must show injury.
of another which results in dispossess°, deprivat° of use, impairment, Negligence per se- use of statute to lay out what RP would do
bodily harm to possessor or harm to something which P has a legal Is statute relevant? APPLICABILITY- guessing intent of legislature
interest in. 1) is this the type of harm the statute intended to prevent? Ask: what
♣ conversion- intentional exercise of dominion/control over a chattel makes this risky in the first place? SPLIT- narrow- look at title/words;
which so seriously interferes with right of another to control that D may broad-
be is this harm foresee? 2) is this the class of persons statute
required to pay the other the full value of chattel. Good Faith- theft≠ ;intended to protect? SPLIT- narrow- look at title/words; broad- is harm to
fraud= P foreseeable?
usually requires a more serious invas° than t of chatt. appropriate to public policy- common law duty? Liability w.o fault?
Notice? Liability disproportionate to conduct? Direct or indirect?
DEFENSES- PRIVILEGES- Juge decides if it is relevant, if not- RP standard.
♠consent- can be implied or apparent- whether reasonable person Effect of statute- evidentiary value-
thought based on conduct that consent was given. Based on social norms. excuses- Inability (blizzard); Compliance presents greater risk than
violation; Incapacity (minor); Emergency (cannot be of your own making);
-sport- w/in scope and rules of game; Lack of knowledge that you need to comply.
- medical- more strict when involving personal body. EXPRESS consent presumption of n- violation of st. is presumption and D needs to rebut. If
no rebut- negligence automatically. Rebut- jury considers evidence under
not required when patient is unconscious, mentally ill, or delay will result
in risk of further harm; or if RP would consent under the circumstances. RP standard. Burden is on P.
Dissent must be known. Silence is NOT implied consent; evidence of n- (rare) jury considers violat° as one piece of evidence; D
-consent from fraud- if person committing fraud is unaware=consent; doesif not have to rebut- burden of pleading; production; persuasion.
aware≠ consent. Res Ipsa Loquitor- mere fact that accident occurred is enough for the
SPLIT- illegal activities≠ consent (maj)- P can sue; illegal activities= reasonable juror to infer neg. 1) accident doesn’t usually happen in the
consent is valid, P can’t sue UNLESS P is in class of persons statute absence of n. 2) was under exclusive control of D 3) P didn’t contribute
intended to protect. SPLIT- some js say allow expert testimony. Usually not for multiple Ds
♠self –defense/ defense of others- actor must use 1) reasonable force unconscious patient- joint and several liability- D must disprove fault.
to defend against unprivileged acts and actor has 2) reasonable beliefEvidentiary
that Value- 1)inference for jury or 2)presumption of neg (D has to
force is necessary to prevent H or O contact. Imminent and rebut, burden of proof with P) or 3) presumption of Neg (D has to prove
reasonable. --Verbal threat≠ sd, unless threat of physical harm. 51% that injury was not caused by his n (burden of proof on D)
Duty to Retreat- non-deadly force≠ no duty; deadly force- SPLIT- (maj)- Causation-
no (but-for, substantial factor, proximate cause)- JURY DECIDES-
duty; (min)- duty exists unless D is at home and there is slightest 51% cause-in-fact- BUT FOR- but for the Ds act°s, Ps injury would not
reasonable doubt that retreat can safely be made. have happened. The standard of proof is more probable than not (51%) –
♠defense of property- deadly force or serious harm cannot be used substantial factor- (loss of chance, multiple sufficient causes)- start with
unless threat of deadly harm . SPLIT- (maj) warning of force does notinjury and remove D’s act°s- would the same result occur? Yes- not sub.
make a diff (min)- warning makes a diff bc then consent is given. When Factor
invasion is peaceful, no force is reasonable- Must make request to leave Loss of chance- P must show loss of chance- can only recover proport° to
unless it seems that it would be futile. loss. Must show- 1) P suffered injury 2) D undertook duty to maximize Ps
♠recovery of property- only in fresh pursuit where prompt discoverybest of outcome
dispossession and prompt and persistent efforts at recovery and mustScientific
use Evidence- expert testimony; still 51% - must show that
reasonable force under the circumstances.- no deadly force, no lapse conduct
in could and did cause injury and that the expert is credible.
time (w/o unnecessary violence)- demand for property must be madeConcurrent Causat°- (1) multiple insufficient causes- together causes
first. If robber persists, recoveror can use necessary force to defend injury each D responsible for all of injury. (2) multiple sufficient causes-
himself. each one individually could have caused injury- substantial factor test.
Shopkeeper’s Privilege- merchant can detain P for reasonable Alternative Liability- (joint and several liability) 2Ds of similarly
time/manner when he reasonable believes he stole chattel (w/in storenegligent
or conduct where one caused the inury- P has to show breach of
vicinity of store) duty, but the burden of proof of causation is w D.
♠necessity- greater good for society when 1) public interest involved,Proximate
2) Cause- an issue for JURY only don’t after cause in fact is est.-
reasonable belief that it is a necessity and 3) action taken was a more than one cause may be a proximate cause, you only have to show
reasonable response to need- doesn’t have to be public official. that D’s cause was 51% .
COMPLETE DEFENSE majority)- Is this type of harm foreseeable? DIRECT CAUSAT° APPROACH
private- D is threatened or reasonably appears to be threatened with (what makes conduct risky) and (2) is P within the zone of risk?
serious harm and response is reasonable in light of threat. INCOMPLETE foreseable
D risks in Ds conduct against foreseeable P) Manner and Extent
(irrelevant)- eggshell P- take them as you find ‘em. If any injury was
foreseeable, you are liable for all injuries.
NEGLIGENCE- duty, breach, causation, damages
intervening- foreseeable event which does not break chaint- ex-
conduct that falls below standard of care established by law for protection
aggravation of a weakened/ pre-existing condition.
of others against unreasonable risk of harm.
superseding- unforeseeable event which cuts off sequence of events
♥DUTY- conform to a certain standard of conduct for protect°
from D’s conduct to P’s injury (unforeseeable, extraordinary,
♥BREACH- failure to use reasonable care. Ways to prove breach-
independent)- act of God, ex
standard of care; RIL; per se; B<PL
intentional or criminal acts- are unforeseeable and superseding
♦B<P*L- b-burden; interests of society; p- probability of injury; l-
EXCEPT- D has a contractual duty to protect P; D’s act destroys P’s
seriousness of injury. Unreasonable not to take precaution if its cost is
protection from crime(?); D brings someone likely to commit a crime into
P’s associat° (pedophile introduct°); D has custody of person with criminal
tendency (D under house arrest)
Suicide- only superseding if was under an irresistible impulse and not
automatic Irresistable impulse test- most js wont let this fly if there is any
advances planning
Rescue Doctrine- 1) D was negligent to person rescued and n caused a
risk to person rescued 2) peril (risk) or appearance of peril was imminent
3) an RP would have concluded such peril existed 4) rescuer acted with
reasonable care in effectuating rescue(RP standard)- After you est that
they fall within rescue doctrine, then you do a traditional proximate cause
inquiry (risk of creating an auto accident, was accident ..)
Professionals- if risk was reasonably anticipated by the job, can’t sue. Is
risk foreseeable? Malpractice is always foreseeable in the absence of
gross n. 2nd actor aggravating condition- often liable for exacerbation of
original injury