Intentional Torts – Notes and Cases

Intentional Torts – Notes and Cases

Traynor on 557 discusses product manufacturers and strict liability.

In the case of the boy pulling the chair it would need to be proved that –>

• he pulled the chair with intent of Ruth Garret falling or
• had specific knoledge that Ruth would attempt to sit where the chair had been
  Tort law is controversial
  – Malpractice pain and suffering limited to $250,000.
  The court didnt rule on the per diem argument, however 3 of the judges opposed to this (per diem argument) in their opinions
  The court had a solid majority backing, Traynor lost on his opinion in this, and California eventually approved use of a per diem argument.
  Traynor alludes to the fact that he would reverse any judgement where non-pecuniary exceeded pecuniary.
  Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno
  Traynor believes there should be strict liability on products
  – liability should be placed where it will most likely reduce negligence at its source.
  – strict liability distributes losses among the public
  20 years after his opinion the courts adopted his rule on a large scale
  
  
  Battery
  Assault definition pg 891
  pg902 Lopez Case false imprissionment
  READ NOTE 10 on pg 890
  Assault
  A physical act | of a threatening nature| [or] an offer of corporal injury | {which} puts an individual | in reasonable fear | of imminent bodily harm
  • Requires apprehension, you can batter someone without placing them in reasonable fear of imminent harm
  A threat of force intended to cause contact or apprehension of contact that results in a well founded apprehension of imminent contact.
  – cant be fear of future contact, cant be conditional
  
  
  Battery
  Intentional infliction of harmful or offensive bodily contact
  – Voluntary Act
  – Intent to cause contact or apprehension of contact
  Intent – purpose to cause contact/apprehension, OR the knowledge that contact is substantially certain to be produced.
  Intent can be transfered, attempt to hit some one and hit someone else by accident.
  – Contact, harmful/ with a person
  Contact can include an object held by a person: cane, glasses, maybe a camera
  Must be offensive to a reasonable sensitivity, if they are super sensitive it may not hold water
  – Not offensive at a club; may be very offensive at a funeral
  Lack of consent
  – a doctor removing a scar without permission is battery (maybe you liked the scar)
  – You do not need the actual ability to effectuate the battery, only an apparent ability to effectuate (to put in force or operation)
  The purpose of causing contact or the apprehension of contact. If the contact occurs then you have fulfilled the requirement for battery
  An act that was intended to cause, and in fact did cause “an offensive contact with or unconsented touching of or trauma upon the body of another, thereby generally resulting in the conssumation of the assault.
  • An intent to injure, however, is unnecessary in a situation in which the defendant willfully sets in motion a force that in its ordinary course causes the injury.
  Intent
  Purpose, knowledge, substantially certain to occur
  In an auto accident have the parties write a statement of what happened.
  Add II. pg 39 and pg 6 & 7 and Traynor 551-560
  
  
  III. Remove pg 44-45 (Carol Toyen case)
  Definitely moving on to false imprisonment
  Must be actual or illeagal intent to restrain
  False Imprisonment
  Two pronged
  – Lack of consent AND
  – Actual confinement
  If free to leave not imprisonment
  Not letting someone in is not imprisonment
  – Consciousness of confinement
  Unless it causes harm
  Common law tort of false imprisonment  is defined as “an unlawful restraint of an individuals personal liberty or freedom of locomotion” “any unlawful exercise or show of force by which a person is compelled to remain where he does not wish to remain or to go” there must be legal intent to restrain. Unlawful restraint may be effected by words alone.
  • There must be actual or legal intent to restrain
  1. actual or apparent physical barriers; 2. overpowering physical force, or by submission to physical force; 3. threats of physical force; 4. or other duress; and 5. asserted legal authority
  If there is “reasonable means of escape” then it is not false imprisonment
  Locking someone out is not false imprison
  Defenses
  
  
  Consent
  implied consent, games, sports (implied consent that some rules will be broken within reason)
  Not Offensive
  What if an HP employee is accused of stealing upcoming software, that may get out to competitors.
  Takes employee in back, brandishes a gun and shows pics of dead employees.
  Says by end of the day if you dont give back software we will kill you.
  
  
  
  
  Traynor opinion in Supplement How does tort law evolve?
  Read Silisnoff case
  
  
  Starting class with Courvasier
  
  
  See Courvoisier v Raymond
  
  
  Self Defense
  Force must be reasonable, deadly force only reasonable only if threat of serious bodily harm.
  – Force can only be used until out of harms way, you cant chase down a threatener and beat the crap out of them.
  – cant use deadly force on outlying property. (outside of house)
  Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
  Courts original against this tort, but begrudgingly recognized.
  – Backdoor way of getting to it, intentionally caused severe emotional distress with reasonably foreseeable bodily harm.
  – De facto reasoning of the tort of assault
  – Bridge to modern tort of IIED
  Now cause of action even if there is no bodily harm if the conduct is extreme and outrageous.
  Position of authority may inflict what is extreme and outrageous (such as a boss)
  Extreme and outrageous of recklessly
  Test severity and length of distress