TORTS 1 RULE STATEMENTS

INTENTIONAL TORTS

ISSUE STATEMENT:

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER ________ HAVE A PRIMA FACIE CASE TO SUE DEFENDANT FOR
________.

THUS, THE ____ ELEMENT IS SATISFIED.

THUS, THE ELEMENT OF _____ IS SATISFIED.

THEREFORE, THE TORT OF _______HAS BEEN PROVEN.

BATTERY

The first question asks whether Person A will be successful in suing Person B for battery.

A person is liable for battery when he acts with intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the
other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and a harmful or offensive contact with the
person of the other directly or indirectly results.

The first issue is whether Person A acted with intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact.

In a single-intent court, a plaintiff will need to show the Defendant intended to commit the act which caused a
harmful or offensive contact. In a dual-intent court, a plaintiff will need to show the Defendant intended to both
commit the act and cause the harm or offense. This court will likely adopt the dual-intent standard. The intent
standard may also be met through the doctrine of transferred intent if the Defendant intends to commit a battery on
one person and actually inflicts one on somebody else.

In order to prove intent, a plaintiff must show that the Defendant deliberately, or by a manifestation of his own will,
acted for the purpose of inflicting a harmful or offensive contact or with substantial certainty, or knowledge, that a
harmful or offensive contact would result.

The second issue is whether Person acted voluntary.

An act for purposes of Battery must be voluntary without any involuntary muscular reflex.
Touching is contact was not consented to.

The third issue is whether the contact was harmful.

A harmful contact is defined as bodily harm which includes any physical impairment of the condition of another’s
body, or physical pain or illness.
The third issue is whether the contact was offensive

An offensive contact is defined as a contact which offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity. The test for
offensive contact is whether a reasonable person in the circumstances of the victim would find the particular contact
offensive. A contact is not offensive if it is socially acceptable.

The fifth issue is contact. To prove contact, you prove a touching.

TRANSFERRED INTENT (BATTERY)

The doctrine of transferred intent allows Person A to use Person B bad intent towards Person A to establish the intent
element of assault in her Person A case.  The doctrine of transferred intent allows the intent to commit one
intentional tort to carry over to any intentional tort actually committed, and also the intent to commit an intentional
tort on Person A to transfer to any other person against whom a tort is committed.

Again, Person A did not intend to commit battery or any other tort against Person B, but the transferred intent
doctrine allows Person B to use Person’s A intent to assault Person C to prove the first element of the battery claim.

ASSAULT

Assault requires an intent to place victim in apprehension of imminent (that is, awareness that that the perceived
harm will be no significant delay) contact that would be battery if completed (that is, contact that would be
physically harmful or offensive), and that the victim was in fact put in that mental state. 

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

A person is liable for false imprisonment when he acts intending to confine the other or a third person without lawful
privilege and within boundaries fixed by the actor, and his act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement of
the other and the other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it.

Confinement is further defined by a limited range of movement for any appreciable time.
Coercion through seizure of personal property can constitute false imprisonment if the Defendant’s purpose is to
confine

The first issue is whether Person A intended to confine Person B. An act for purposes of False Imprisonment must
be voluntary without any involuntary muscular reflex that results in confinement.

The second issue is whether Person A confined Person B without lawful privilege and within boundaries fixed by the
actor. To show lawful privilege, the Defendant must have been acting in some authoritative role delegated to him by
the state

The third issue is whether Person B’s act resulted in a confinement. To show confinement, the plaintiff must show
he was limited in his range of movement for an appreciable amount of time.

A person is confined within fixed boundaries if he/she not free to move or there is no reasonable means of escape

Freedom of movement limited in all directions

Does not need to be small or stationary
No reasonable means of escape
Examples: physical barriers, force, threat of force, invalid invocation of authority, duress, coercion,
refusal to set free
Failure to provide safe means of escape

Reasonable means of escape must not result in serious bodily injury.

Victim is either (a) conscious (aware) of the confinement or

Victim is either (b) harmed by it (serious bodily injury)

Victim does not consent to it.

Defenses:
Consent
Can be limited
Was there true consent, coercion, whether the D exceeded the scope of consent freely given
“Shoplifters Privilege” - Privilege to detain a customer to investigate apparent shop lifting
executed by P/O, Security Officers, Store Manager, Clerk
Privilege to arrest
Private persons v P/O
Arrest without warrants

IIED

The question is whether Person A has a prima facie case to sue Person B for Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress. A person is liable for IIED, when, be extreme and outrageous conduct, s/he intentionally or recklessly
causes severe emotional distress.

The first issue is whether Person A conduct was extreme and outrageous.

Extreme and outrageous conduct is so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree, as to be considered utterly
intolerable in a civilized society. Common factual scenarios include repeated conduct, abuse of power, and
knowledge of the victim’s vulnerability. However, mere threats or insults are not enough to raise a claim for extreme
and outrageous conduct.

The second issue is whether Person A intended to or recklessly caused Person A severe emotional distress. A person
intends severe emotional distress when she acts with purpose to cause severe emotional distress, or with substantial
certainty that severe emotional distress will result. A person recklessly causes severe emotional distress she is aware
of the risk of severe emotional distress but fails to take precaution to eliminate or reduce that risk

The third issue is whether Person A caused Person B severe emotional distress. Severe emotional distress is severe
or debilitating. Evidence of severe emotional distress includes: Physiological symptoms, Depression, nightmares,
anxiety; intense, long-lasting and substantial impairment of day to day functioning.

Section 46 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts provides that a plaintiff can recover for an extreme and outrageous
act directed at a third party only if either (1) the plaintiff was present when the defendant did an extreme and
outrageous act directed at the plaintiff’s immediate family member or (2) the plaintiff was present when the
defendant did an extreme and outrageous act directed at another person and the plaintiff’s distress from witnessing
this was so severe that it resulted in the plaintiff suffering bodily harm.

TRESPASS TO LAND

A Person is liable for Trespass to Land Intentional entry onto the land of another, with or without harm: a voluntary
act that invades the land.

The first element is intent. In order to prove intent, a plaintiff must show that the Defendant deliberately, or by a
manifestation of his own will, acted for the purpose of entering the land or
with substantial certainty, or knowledge, that an entry would result.

The second element is the entry onto the land of another. To prove entry, One-step intent (intent to enter the land) is
enough; one may be liable even if one did not intend to trespass. Either personal entry or causing an item to enter.
Entering w/o intent but refusing to leave = intent.

The third element is the voluntary act invasion upon the land. To prove voluntary, without any involuntary muscular
reflex.
****
Damage to the property is not an element of trespass to land, the unauthorized entrant is liable irrespective of
whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected interest of the court. This allows a court to award to at least
nominal damages, for the intrusion, in order to vindicate an owners right to sole possession of her property.

If a physical trespass is found that may recue, a court will gran an injunction against further trespasses.

TRESPASS TO CHATTELS

A Person is liable for Trespass to Chattels when he/she intentionally interference with another’s property, so that the
owner’s use and enjoyment is harmed.

The first element is intent. In order to prove intent, a plaintiff must show that the Defendant deliberately, or by a
manifestation of his own will, acted for the purpose of entering the land or
with substantial certainty, or knowledge, that an entry would result.

The second element is owners use and enjoyment. To prove this element, you should apply the Reasonable Personal
Standard.

The third element is harm. To prove harm, you should consider dispossession, damage and significant deprivation of
use.

The intent element is satisfied because of transferred intent (from the battery) and as a result trespass to
chattel is actionable.

CONVERSION

The question is whether Person A will be successful in suing Person B for conversion. A person is liable for
conversion when he intentionally exercises dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the
right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel.

The factors that contribute to substantial dominion, the defendants extend and duration of control of control of the
plaintiffs property, the defendants intent to assert the right over the plaintiffs property, the defendant good faith, the
harm done to plaintiffs property, and the expense and inconvenience incurred by the plaintiff as a result of the
defendants actions.

The first issue to examine is the extent and duration of Person A exercise of dominion or control over Person B
crutches. To prove the extent and duration elements, the Plaintiff must show that Person A physically possessed his
chattel for an extended duration.

The second issue is whether Person A intentionally asserted a right in fact inconsistent with Person B right of control
over his crutches. To prove intent, the Defendant must have acted with a purpose to assert a right of control or with
substantial certainty that control would result from his actions.

The third issue is whether Person A acted in good faith. An actor’s good faith is shown if the conversion was
created in order to save the victim from impending harm that could potentially be caused by the chattel or to show a
good gesture such as improving the condition of the chattel.

The fourth issue to examine is the extent and duration of the resulting interference with the other’s right of control.
This factor requires the plaintiff to show the Defendant’s act resulted in an extended interference with the plaintiff’s
right of control.

The fifth issue to examine is the harm done to Person A chattel. To prove harm, the plaintiff must show a substantial
change in the condition of the chattel.
The sixth and final issue to examine is the expense and inconvenience caused to the owner of the chattel. To show
these elements, the plaintiff needs to show that there was a cost associated with the interference of his right of
control and that he was placed in challenging disposition.

*******
Serial Conversions – All parties that was a part of the conversion can be sued collectively.
Bona Fide Purchasers – Innocent converters are liable

Factors between Trespass to Chattels and Conversion:

Extent and duration of exercise of dominion or control
Actors intent
Good faith
Extent duration of interference with the others right of control
Harm done to the chattel
Inconvenience and expense caused to the other.

Remedies:
The remedy for conversion is damages, measured by the full market value of the chattel at the time of
conversion.
P might, instead of seeking value of the chattel, seek replevin of claim and delivery, that is, can return of the
chattel.

DEFENSES TO INTENTIONAL TORTS

SELF-DEFENSE

Clearly, Person A committed a battery on Person B.  Person A could claim self-defense, which if established, would
free him from liability.  Person B would have to prove (1) that he reasonably believed that force was needed in order
to defend himself, and (2) that the amount and type of force he used was reasonable and not excessive.

1. Here, the first question is whether Person A apparent belief that Person B was a threat to his safety was
reasonable under the circumstances.  

2. The second question is whether the amount and type of force that Person A used was reasonable.

It entitles you to use reasonable force to prevent threatened harmful/offensive contact or confinement. The issue
surrounding self-defense is normally whether your response was reasonable in light of the perceived threat to you.

Amount of force allowed – only what reasonably appears necessary to protect yourself against the threat.

Deadly force – you can use deadly force only if you reasonably believe the other person is about to kill you or
seriously injury you. Deadly force Is force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.

Effect of provocation – you aren’t privileged to use self-defense to respond to mere verbal threats. If the words are
accompanied by a physical act threatening imminent physical violence.

Duty to retreat before you use force – The majority rule is that you don’t have to retreat under any circumstances.
The majority rule agrees, if you’re using only non-deadly force; but if you want to use deadly force, the minority rule
is that you have to try to escape, unless you can’t retreat safely, or you’re in your own home.

Limits on self-defense – You can’t use excessive force and you can’t use self-defense as retaliation.; that is, you
can’t use self-defense once the danger has passed.
Effects of mistake – You’re allowed to make reasonable mistake; that is, you may defend on ground of self-defense
even if your mistaken about the threaten or the need to use force, if your mistake was reasonable.

Effect of Injuring others – When you use force in self-defense and injury someone other than your attacker, you’re
liable to anyone you intentionally injure. For unintentional injuries to third parties, your only liable if you were
negligent.

The key here is that the initial aggressor may subsequently have the right to self-defense, if he retreats and the person
he threatened comes after him. That’s what happened here. A person’s right to self defense ended, because a part is
no longer needed to use force to protect herself. Instead the attach was retaliation, giving a person a privilege to
defend himself.

DEFENSE OF OTHERS

1. Here, the first question is whether Person A apparent belief that Person B was a threat to his safety was
reasonable under the circumstances.  

2. The second question is whether the amount and type of force that Person A used was reasonable.

Deadly force may be used only if threatened with death.

Most courts say retreat is not required except before using deadly force (but retreat is not required before using
deadly force in the home)

You may use reasonable force to protect third parties who are threatened with any kind of immediate harm, like rape
or serious bodily injury. The most important thing to remember about the “defense of others” privilege is the effect
of mistake.

DEFENSE OF PROPERTY

Person A privileged to use force to defend property if: (1) the intrusion isn’t privileged (2) you reasonably believe
force is necessary to prevent or terminate the intrusion (3) you demand that the intruder desist before you use force
(4) you use only as much force as appears to be reasonably necessary to protect the property.

Reasonable belief, reasonable force: A person may use the force reasonably necessary to defend possession of land
or chattels against a reasonably apparent intrusion, taking, harm, or continuing trespass.

There is no privilege to use deadly force (or force likely to cause serious bodily) merely to
defend property.

Effect of mistake – you’re entitled to a reasonably mistake as to the necessity of using force; however, you’re
entitled to a reasonable mistake as whether the intrusion is privileged. That is, if the intrusion is privileged, you can’t
use force against the intruder, even if you reasonably believe the intrusion isn’t privileged

Use of deadly force – you may never use deadly force just to protect property. You may use deadly force only when
the property invasion is coupled with reasonable fear of grievous bodily harm.

Effect of privileged intrusion – If the plaintiff enters your property under a privilege of her own, you aren’t entitled
to sue force against her.

Exposing intruder to a greater danger – You may not expel an intruder to put him in a position of unreasonable
physical danger.

RECAPTURING CHATTELS
Original possessor may use reasonable force while in “hot pursuit.” After control is lost, however, only resort is to
court.
Mistake deprives original possessor of privilege.

ARREST AND DETENTION: SHOPKEEPER’S PRIVILEGE

Suspected shoplifter sues shopkeeper for battery or false imprisonment: shopkeeper tries to avoid liability.
Elements: what must the shopkeeper-Deft. prove?
 Reasonable cause to believe shoplifting occurred.
 Detention for the purpose of investigation.
 Reasonable manner and duration of detention.

CONSENT

Consent can be used as a defense to an intentional tort. Actual consent is the statement to the Defendant that
she may do something that would be an intentional tort. Apparent Consent can be explicitly expressed or implied
through words (or silence), conduct, and circumstances. Ineffective Consent as a defense is ineffective if the consent
was obtained through mistake, fraud or duress, when the alleged victim did not have the capacity to consent, or if the
action that takes place goes beyond the scope of the consent given. Consent can be revoked at any time so long as it
its communicated, making any contact thereafter tortious.

Consent was apparent from the course of conduct and relationship of the parties and I can always revoke my consent.

Consent can be revoked at any time, you must provide notice.

If ongoing conduct, its implied that I consent to touching.

Consent is the actual or apparent willingness for conduct of another to occur.

Actual consent may be expressed in words or acts, or silence or inaction, when the circumstances or other evidence
establish that the silence or inaction is intended to give consent; actual consent need not be communicated to the
person making the contact.

Apparent consent exists when a person's acts or words, silence or inaction, would be understood by a reasonable
person as intended to indicate consent, and are in fact so understood by the person doing the act resulting in contact.
An honest but unreasonable belief that the other person is consenting to a contact does not constitute apparent
consent.

Consent must be informed and freely given. Consent induced by fraud a substantial mistake, or duress is not freely
given.

Consent is a valid defense to almost every story, but only within the scope of the conduct the victim consented to, or
conduct closely related to that consent.

Such consent is implied if: (a) plaintiff can’t consider whether to consent (because she’s unconscious), (b) there no
reason to think plaintiff wouldn’t consent, (c) an immediate decision is required and (d) a reasonable person in
plaintiff’s position would consent.

The rule on fraud as it relates to consent is that it invalidates consent only if it relates to an essential matter not a
collateral one. The fraud here relates to a collateral matter, not an essential one, as such; the consent is valid.

The majority view is that a person cannot consent to a criminal act.

To invalidate consent, duress must involve a threat of harm, to the plaintiff or a family member, that is immediate
and serious. Although duress is involved here, duress in the form of threatened future economic deprivation or future
violence is not sufficient to invalidate consent.

Collateral Issues are minor unimportant issues.

NEGLIGENCE