Plaintiff v.

Defendant

Assault:
Plaintiff will likely prevail in an action against the defendant for assault when D did an action that cause P
to become aware of potential battery. An assault is the intentional placing of another in reasonable
apprehension of receiving an imminent battery. The plaintiff must sufficiently meet all of the elements in
an action for assault to prevail.

Rules:
Assault is the intentional placing of a person in reasonable apprehension of receiving an imminent
battery. Intent is a desire to cause the apprehension. Voluntary act is external manifestation of the
defendant’s will, and this action did cause the apprehension to occur. Reasonable apprehension is an that
of an average person that perceives, believes and is aware that some harm will certainly occur. Imminent
battery is any potential touching that is considered harmful or offensive that will certainly occur without
delay. Harmful contact is touching that would result in pain, injury, or disfigurement to a person.
offensive contact is touching that is considered rude, disrespectful, or damaging to a person’s sense of
dignity.

The first element is intent. Intent is present if the defendant desired to cause the plaintiff to be placed in -
reasonable apprehension of receiving a harmful or offensive contact or if the defendant has knowledge
with a substantial certainty that such potential contact will occur. In this case here, when the defendant
did an action, this was the intent because it shows … therefore this element has been met.

The second element is a voluntary act. A voluntary act is the external manifestation of defendant’s will to
cause the plaintiff to be in reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery. In this case, the defendant
actually did this action to the plaintiff. Because the defendant did said action and caused plaintiff to be in
apprehension. Therefore this element has been met.

The third element is reasonable apprehension. To be placed in a reasonable apprehension the plaintiff
must believe and perceive that some type of harm or damage will soon occur without delay. One can not
be in apprehension if the person is not aware of it happening. The plaintiff must actually believe that the
defendant had the apparent ability to cause the harm and would cause the harm. In this case here, the
defendant did an action that caused the plaintiff to reasonably believe and become aware of potential
battery incurring. Therefore, this element has been met.

The last element if an imminent battery. An imminent battery is one that is without delay and that
potentially cause a harmful or offensive contact. In this case, the defendant did something and this action
cause the protentional contact that would be disrespectful to an average person or has the potential to
cause harm to an average person. because the of the defendants action the last element of assault has been
met.

In conclusion the plaintiff will likely prevail in an action against the defendant for assault because the
plaintiff was able to sufficiently prove all the necessary elements of assault using the facts of the case.

Battery:

Plaintiff will likely prevail in an action against D for battery when D swung the bat intending to scare P
but accidently struck P instead. A battery is the intentional infliction of a harmful or offensive contact
upon the person of another or an extension of that person. Maria must prove all of the following elements
to prevail in an action for battery: 1. Voluntary act 2. Intent. 3. Harmful or offensive contact 4.person
of another.

Rules:
Intent is a desire to cause the apprehension. Voluntary act is external manifestation of the defendant’s will
Voluntary act
Intent

Harmful or offensive

Contact

The first element is a voluntary act.The first element is a voluntary act. A voluntary act is the external
manifestation of Karen’s will to commit a harmful or offensive contact upon Maria.
In this case … because
Therefore this element has been met.

The second element is intent. Intent is present if Karen consciously desired to cause a harmful or
offensive contact to Maria or of she has knowledge with a substantial certainty that such contact will
occur. However, intent can be transferred from tort to tort and from person to person. Transferred
intent however, does not negate the intent of the actor. The intent must be transferred to the harmed
person. In this case … becaus
Therefore this element has been met.

The third element is a harmful or offensive contact. Harmful contact is any contact that has the
potential to cause harm or pain. Offensive contact is that contact that is disagreeable or nauseating
because of outrage to taste and sensibilities.
In this case Karen … because
Therefore this element has been met.

The fourth element is that the contact occurred upon the person of another or extension of that person.
To injure a person’s person is to cause damage to a part of the body. An extension of a person is
something in the persons hand or on the person’s body. In this case … because
Therefore this element has been met.

In conclusion all of the element of a battery have been proven and Maria will likely prevail in action
against Karen because …

Trespass to chattel:

The platintiff will likely prevail in an action against the defendant for trespass to chattel when the
defendant did something to the plaintiff’s personal property and possessed it. Trespass to chattel is the
intentional using, dispossessing, or intermeddling of the chattel of another that causes damage. The
plaintiff must meet all of the necessary element to prevail.

Rules:
Voluntary act
Intent
Using, dispossessing, or intermeddling
Chattel of another
Damages.

The first element is a voluntary act. A voluntary act is the external manifestation of defendants will to
intermeddle with the chattel of the plaintiff.
In this case … because
Therefore this element has been met.

The second element is intent. Intent is present when if the defendant consciously desires to intermeddle
with the plaintiff’s personal property or if the defendant has the knowledge with a substantial certainty
that the intermeddling (physical contact) would occur.
In this case.. because
Therefore this element has been met.

The third element is the using, dispossessing, or intermeddling. To use, dispossess, or intermeddle with
something is to come into physical contact with it in some form. These can be in the form of withholding
in one’s possession, using it for some time, or meddling with it in any way. In this case…. Because …
Therefore this element has been met.

The fourth element is the chattel of another. Chattel is any movable property that belongs to a person. that
person is said to hace an exclusive interest in the moveable, which gives them the ability to recover any
damage for the moveable property. In this case…. Because.
Therefore this element has been met.

The fifth element is the causing of damage. Damage can appear in many different forms including :
dispossession, impaired condition, quality, or value; deprivation of use for a substaintial period of time; or
harm or damage to a person or thing within the legally protected interest of the owner. In addition the
owner may use reasonable force in retrieving his chattel.
In this case here… because
Therefore this element has been met..

In conclusion…

Trespass to land

The plaintiff will likely prevail in an action against the defendant for trespass to land when D refused to
leave P home and sat on the steps for two hours. Trespass to land is the intentional and unpermitted
invasion, intrusion, or entry upon the land of another of which the possessor has a legally protected
immovable interest. The P must prove all of the following elements to prevail in an action for trespass to
land: 1. Voluntary act 2. Intent 3. Unpermitted intrusion, invasion, entry 4. Legally protected immovable
interest.

RULES:
Voluntary act
Intent
Unpermitted intrusion, invasion, entry
Legally protected immovable interest
.
The first element is a voluntary act. A voluntary act is the external manifestation of Ds will to intrude
upon the land of the P. In this case … because
Therefore this element has been met.
The second element is intent. Intent is present if the D consciously desired to enter upo the land of the P
or if the D has knowledge with a substantial certainty that such intrusion will occur. In this case.. because
Therefore this element has been met.

The third element is an unpermitted intrusion, invasion, or entry upon the property. Unpermitted simply
means without permission or consent. There are a number of factors that can be considered when
determining what type of invasion, intrusion, or entry has occurred: whether it was the defendant himself
something placed on the land by the defendant, something below or above the land, a failure to leave oe a
failure to remove something. In this case.. because
Therefore this element has been met

The fourth element is that there must be a legally protected immovable interest. Exclusive protection is
granted to landowners, renters, etc. they are legally owners of tha land that has been trepassed upon. In
this case.. because..
Therefore, this element has been met.

In conclusion…

false imprisonment

The P will likely not prevail in an action against D for false imprisonment when he sat outside her steps
with a bat, thus causing her to fear leaving the house. False imprisonment is the intentional and unlawful,
total restraint of another while they are aware of or harmed by the confinement. In order to prevail in the
action P would have to prove the following elements: 1. Voluntary act 2. Intent 3. Total restraint 4.
Without legal justification 5. Aware of or injured as a result of the confinement.

Rules:
1. A intentional sufficient act of restraint
2. Did cause confinement of a person
3. to a bounded area or confinement

The first element

The second element

The third element

In conclusion…

IIED

The P will likely not prevail in an action against D for the intentional infliction of emotional distress
(IIED) when due to his presence at her home she had to be taken to the hospital for her nerves and
convulsions. IIED is the intentional or (reckless) causing of another to suffer severe emotional distress by
extreme and outrageous conduct. The P will have to prove all of the following elements to prevail in an
action: 1. Voluntary act 2. Intent (or recklessness) 3. Severe emotional distress 4. Extreme and outrageous
conduct.

RULES
Intentional or reckless infliction of extreme and outrageous conduct that cuases severe emotional or
mental distress to a person.

1.Extreme and outrageous conduct.

2.Intended to cause
3.Did cause
4.Severe emotional distress

The first element is a voluntary act. A voluntary act is the external manifestation of D’s will to cause
severe emotional distress to the Mother. In this case … because
Therefore this element has been met.

The second element is intent or (recklessness). Intent is present if Henry consciously desired to cause
Mother to suffer severe emotional distress or if he has knowledge with a substantial certainty that such
distress would occur. Recklessness is present if Henry acts with a high degree of probability that the
severe emotional distress will follow. In this case … because
Therefore this element has been met.

The third element is severe emotional distress. Emotional distress is said to be severe when no reasonable
person should ever have to endure such suffering. The intensity and duration of the SED must also be
considered. The SED must be reasonable and justified under the circumstances. The mother does not
have to suffer bodily injury, but she may recover damages if they occur. In this case … because
Therefore this element has been met.

The fourth element is extreme and outrageous conduct. The conduct must be so outrageous in character
and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly
intolerable in a civilized society. This does not include mere indignities, insults, threats or annoyances.
There are three factors used to determine if conduct is extreme and outrage which are: the apparent power
to effect the interest of that person, knowledge of a particular susceptibility to the SED, or privilege
conduct in a permissible way. In this case … because..
Therefore this element has not been met.

In conclusion …
conversion
Karen will likely prevail in an action against Henry for conversion when he threw her bat in the lake.
Conversion is the intentional exercise of dominion or control over the chattel of another that so seriously
interferes with the right of the owner to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the
full value of the chattel. Karen must met all of the element to prevail.

Rules
1. Voluntary act
2. Intent
3. Exercise of dominion or control
4. Chattel of another
5. Serious inference of which full value is recoverable

The first element is a voluntary act. A voluntary act is the external manifestation of Henry’s will to
exercise dominion or control over the chattel of Karen.
In this case … because
Therefore this element has been met.

The second element is intent. Intent is present if Henry consciously desires to exercise dominion or
control over Karen’s bat or if he has knowledge with a substantial certainty that the control would occur.
In this case … because
Therefore this element has been met.

The third element is the actual exercising of dominion or control over the chattel. To exercise dominion
or control is to have complete power over it as if it is one’s own. In this case … because
Therefore this element has been met.

The fourth element is the chattel of another. Chattel is any movable property that belongs to a person.
That person is said to have an exclusive interest in the movable, which gives them the ability to recover
any damages for the movable property. In this case … because
Therefore this element has been met.
The fifth element is the serious inference of the chattel for which full value is recoverable. Factors used to
determine the seriousness of the interference include: extend and duration of the dominion, extend and
duration of the interference, asserting a right inconsistent with the owner’s right, the actor’s good faith,
harm to the chattel, and the inconvenience and expense posed to the owner. If it is determined that the
interference was “so serious” the actor will be liable for the full value of the chattel as if it were his from
the start. In this case … because
Therefore this element has been met.

In conclusion all of the elements of conversion has been proven and Karen will likely prevail in an action
against Henry because …

Negligence

Liability for negligence requires that the defendant breached the duty to prevent foreseeable harm to
someone like the plaintiff by failing to exercise the care that a reasonable person would have exercised,
and that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of the harm to the plaintiff.

Negligence -A duty to conform to a standard of care, the breach of which is the actual and proximate
cause of plaintiff’s damages.

Duty
Generally there is a duty to all foreseeable plaintiffs to act as a reasonable, prudent person under the
circumstances. Here, David is required [to] act as a reasonable, prudent delivery person driving in a
residential neighborhood. He should be aware of parked cars and the possibility of hitting them. He has a
duty to drive carefully.

Foreseeable Plaintiff
Since Able lives in the neighborhood and had his car parked there, he is a foreseeable plaintiff.

Breach - Did D breach his duty to A?

Breach is a failure to exercise reasonable care. Where there is a statute usually safety related – that has
been violated it is negligence per se. A statute must:

1. be clearly defined
2. the ¶ must be in a class intended to be protected by the statute
3. the harm done was that type that the statute included be present
4. the D. was not excused by necessity

Here there is presumably a speeding statute because there is a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The ¶, A[,] is
clearly in the protected class because his auto is subject to accident from speeding cars. The harm (vehicle
damage) was what [the] statute intended to protect and D had no legitimate excuse. Therefore D has
breached his duty to A.

or

Breach
An unjustified failure to live up to the standard of care. Here, David struck Able’s parked car. The
question is whether he was negligent and failed in his duty.

Negligence Per Se
If a statute has a penalty for its violation and proscribes the conduct expected and the statute is designed
to prevent the type of harm caused by defendant and protect the class of plaintiff harmed by defendant,
the statutory duty will be substituted for the common law duty. Its breach is negligence per se. Here,
David broke a speeding statute that proscribed an expected conduct of 25 mph (David was driving 30
mph). In addition, the statute would obviously have a penalty (a speeding ticket) and it is designed to
protect persons or property owners that may be harmed by speeders (type of harm and class of plaintiffs).
Therefore, David is negligent per se.

Or

Breach
An unjustified failure of defendant to conform his conduct to the duty owed. Here, David acted
unreasonably and without proper precaution. He should have anticipated that the resident, Baker, would
be coming out the door and might not see the package that is “just in front of the doorway.” Therefore,
David breached his duty owed to Baker.

Causation
Actual Cause
“But for” David’s speeding, Able’s car would not have been damaged how and when it was.

Proximate Cause
David’s speeding and hitting Able’s car was foreseeable and there were no intervening events that would
break the chain of causatio[n]. The damages flowed naturally from the car being hit.

Damages
General Damages (pain and suffering) Here, there is no personal injury to Able. Therefore, there is no
recovery for pain and suffering.

Special Damages-Pecuniary losses

Here, Able will be able to recover for his property damages (his car was badly damaged). He will recover
for any repairs or for total loss of car if that is the case.

Defenses
Comparative Negligence
A plaintiff’s recovery will be reduced by his degree of fault. Here, there is no indication that Able had any
degree of fault. Therefore there will be no reduction in Able’s recovery.

Contributory Negligence
In some jurisdictions, a plaintiff may be completely barred from recovery if he contributes in the least to
the harm. Here, there is no indication that Able contributed in the least to the accident. Therefore, there
will be no reduction in his recovery.

Assumption of Risk
A plaintiff may be completely barred if he knowingly and voluntarily assumes the risk of the accident.
Here, there is no indication that Able knew of the risk to his car or voluntarily assumed it. Therefore, his
recovery will not be barred due to assumption of risk.

Negligent Behavior: Breach of our duty to prevent foreseeable harm to another by failing
to exercise the care that a reasonable person would have exercised.

B. Negligence: The tort of negligence that is present when the above behavior is the cause
of harm to a person or persons to whom a duty is owed
C. Definition: Restatement: Negligence is conduct which falls below the standard
established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable harm. It does not include
conduct recklessly disregardful of an interest of others.
 II. ELEMENTS

A. DUTY:

1. Owed by the average reasonable person- to prevent foreseeable harm to someone

like the plaintiff by exercising the care that a reasonable person would exercise.
a. Characteristics assumed for the average reasonable person

i. Physical ability – subjective standard

ii. Mental ability – objective standard
iii. Knowledge – community standard

b. Characteristics assumed for particular classes of people

i. Professionals – knowledge of others in same or similar

communities – now often a national standard
ii. Children – knowledge of children of like age,
intelligence, education and experience

 dealings between them.

B. BREACH
1. Proof of what defendant did
a. Direct Proof
b. Res Ipsa Loquitur: Restatement (Third) of Torts, § 17 describes a two
step process for establishing res ipsa loquitur.

i. The first step is whether the accident is the kind that

would usually be caused by negligence, and
ii. the second is whether or not the defendant had exclusive
control over the instrumentality that caused the accident.

2. Unreasonableness of defendant’s conduct

a. Custom
b. Negligence per se

2. CAUSE-IN-FACT (Actual Cause)

1. In tort law, the cause-in-fact issue inquires into the causal connection between the
defendant’s wrongful conduct and the plaintiff’s injury

2. “But for”:
a. FIVE STEP PROCESS

i. Identify the injuries in the suit

ii. Identify the wrongful conduct
iii. Mentally correct the wrongful conduct to the extent
necessary to make it lawful, leaving everything else the same
 iv. Ask whether the injuries would still have occurred if the
defendant had been acting correctly in that sense
v. Answer the question
2. “Substantial Factor”
1. In the most limited sense, Substantial factor is a term used to describe a
cause-in-fact test in a limited category of cases in which “two causes
concur to bring about an event, and either cause, operating alone, would
have brought about the event absent the other cause…..”

PROXIMATE OR LEGAL CAUSE (SCOPE OF THE DUTY)DUTY/RISK

3. Completely different from cause-in-fact

4. remote
5. Foreseeable harm
1. No intervening causes – liable
2.

Unforeseeable harm

a. From foreseeable causes – liable

b. From unforeseeable causes -- liable
5. Foreseeable plaintiff
a. Palsgraf: Majority position requires that the plaintiffs be foreseeable.
Consequently the element of duty may effectively limit liability when unforeseeable plaintiffs are
damaged.
6.

E. DEFENSES
4. Negligence by Plaintiff
a. Contributory Negligence
b. Comparative Negligence
5. Assumption of the Risk
F. DAMAGES


Negligence 1 is the failure to perform when there is a duty to act as an ordinary prudent
reasonable person. In other words, it is presumed that an ordinary, prudent reasonable person
that 1 owes a duty to another will take precautions against creating unreasonable risks of
injury to other persons. To establish a prima facie case for negligence under common law, the
following elements must be proved: The existence of a duty on the part of the defendant to
2 conform to a specific standard of conduct for the protection of the plaintiff against unreasonable
risk of injury

Breach of that duty by the defendant

That the breach of duty by the defendant was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s
injury; and
 Damage to the plaintiff’s person or property.

 Liability for negligence requires that the defendant breached the duty to prevent foreseeable harm
to someone like the plaintiff by failing to exercise the care that a reasonable person would have
exercised, and that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of the harm to the plaintiff.