Torts Cheat Sheet by IkranJNoor

Battery is an intent­ional harm effect­uated through physical means. A person is subject to liability for battery when he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact, and when a harmful or offensive contact results. There are two elements of battery: (1) the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact, and (2) the act results in a harmful or offensive contact. The first element of intent can be achieved in two ways: (1) purpose was to cause harm and (2) knowledge to a substa­ntial certainty that harmful or offensive contact would result (Garrat v. Dailey). The element of intent can also be spilt into dual or single intent depending on the jurisd­iction. Single is the intent to make contact without intending it to be harmful or offensive while dual is the intent to make contact and that it be harmful or offensive. (White v. Muniz / Colo. / Dual) (Wagner v. State / Utah / Single). Insanity is not a defense. It does not destroy the intent. Mistaken intent is still intent. Mistakes do not destroy the intent. The element of intent can also manifest itself through transf­erred intent: when one intends to commit a tort against a third party, but tort occurred against the plaintiff. (Baska v. Scherzer / HS party). Reckle­ssness is not enough to satisfy intent. The second element of battery goes to whether the act caused a harmful or offensive contact. A harmful contact of battery is contact causing physical impairment or injury, while an offensive contact of battery is a contact that is offensive to reasonable sense of personal dignity. Contact which is not offensive to society can still be offensive if an individual commun­icated sensit­ivities and a defendant agreed to respect those sensit­ivi­ties. (Cohen v. Smith). Synder v. Turk / DI / Reasonable minds test*

Assault is defined as an intent­ional act that puts another person in reasonable appreh­ension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. There are two elements of assault: (1) the intent to cause a reasonable appreh­ension of an imminent battery and (2) causes a reasonable appreh­ension of imminent battery. No physical contact is required. It is a “touching of the mind, if not of the body.” Appreh­ension is not defined as fear but as antici­pation. Assault is judged by a “reaso­nable person” standard meaning that under the 3rd restat­ement of torts, assault should be judged using a subjective rather than objective standard, expect where a claim is grounded primarily in words rather than deeds. Damages for assault is based on the invasion of plaintiff” mental peace.” (**Cul­lison v. Medley)

False impris­onment is defined as an intent­ional act where one person engages in an act of restraint on another person which confines that person in a restricted area. There are four elements of false impris­onment: (1) a person’s conduct, (2) is intended to, and does in fact, (3) “confine” another “within boundaries fixed by the actor,” and (4) where the victim is either “conscious of the confin­ement” or “is harmed by it.” All the elements are required to argue false impris­onment. An individual can be either conscious or uncons­cious yet still harmed by it. Bad motive is not needed. If an individual can reasonably escape, then you are not falsely impris­oned. However, a means of escape is not reasonable if you do not know of it, and it is not apparent. (**McCann v. Walmart Stores, Inc; confin­ement can be for any time, however short)

Trespass to land is defined as intent­ionally entering another owner's property or land without permis­sion. There are three elements of trespa­ssing to land: (1) plaintiff has ownership or possessory interest in land; and (2) defendant intent­ionally entered land or caused an object to enter it (3) in a way that harms plaint­iffs' interest in exclusive posses­sion. With the second element of intent; intent to trespass is not needed only the intent to enter. You cannot be held liable for trespass if you entered a property against your will, however if you have the will to leave and refuse then you can be held liable for trespass. Trespass requires tangible invasion (i.e. entering the land); intangible intrusions such as noise or odor are not considered trespass but nuisance. Trespass accounts for space above and below the property (drones; drilling beneath the property). *Damages = monetary (sometimes only nominal), possibly an injunction

Trespa­ssing to chattels is intent­ional, unjust­ified physical interf­erence with plaint­iff’s use and enjoyment of his or her property, which thereby causes plaintiff harm. The substa­ntial certainty of causing such interf­erence also suffices. There are three elements for trespass to chattels: (1) D intent­ionally and physically interfered with P’s use and enjoyment of P’s chattel; (2) without justif­ica­tion; (3) thereby causing the P actual harm. Must show some sort of injury due to impairment of the property or the loss of its use Liability is based on actual damage either in the form of actual harm of the chattel itself or interf­erence with P access or use** School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz (Porno­graphic emails/ damage to computer system)

Conversion of chattels is when a defendant intent­ionally exercises “subst­antial dominion” over a chattel, thus interf­ering with or, more often, entirely defeating the plaint­iff’s ability to control it. (generally applicable when interf­erence is such that the chattel is effect­ively stolen or destro­yed). There are four elements of conversion of chattels: plaintiff must show (1) title to the property or the right of posses­sion, (2) actual possession by the defendant, (3) demand for return of the property, and (4) refusal by defendant to return the property. The intent to deprive another of property is not required, only the exercise of substa­ntial dominion is necessary. damages = value of chattel at the time of conversion or the return of the chattel can use good faith purchaser as defense unless chattel was stolen. P can only win if a third party stole it unless D bought it from a business in the business of selling stolen chattels Substa­ntial dominion factors: extent­/du­ration of control; D intent to assert a right to the property; D good faith; harm done; and expense or inconv­enience caused*

Intent­ional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) is defined as when one acts intent­ionally or recklessly causing another to suffer severe emotional distress. The four elements of IIED: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) intent to cause, or disregard of a substa­ntial probab­ility of causing, severe emotional distress; (3) a causal connection between the conduct and injury and (4) severe emotional distress resulting from conduct. To satisfy the first element, the conduct must go “beyond all possible bounds of decency.” and must be “atroc­ious” and “utterly intole­rable in a civilized commun­ity.” Chanko v. American Broadc­asting Co., (death filmed in NY, no consent, court no IIED, no 1st element) GTE Southwest v. Bruce (yes to 1st element, why? = position of power, regular harass­ment, ongoing + common) ** hard to bring by itself; can bring with another tort claim

Discip­line: (MA) (1) force used against the minor child is reason­able; (2) the force is reasonably related to the purpose of safegu­arding or promoting the welfare of the minor, including the prevention or punishment of the minors miscon­duct; and (3) the force used neither causes, nor creates a substa­ntial risk of causing, physical harm (beyond fleeting pain or minor, transient marks), gross degrad­ation, or severe mental distress.” teache­r/b­aby­sit­ter­s/other may have limited privilege

Self-d­efense is when a person reasonably believes that use of unlawful physical force is occurring or will imminently occur against him/he­rself or another and they employ reasonable force, meaning that it was reasonable to use force + amount of force was reason­able, for the prevention of harm. (not retali­ation or revenge) some states requiring retreating first when safe to do so except in home Grimes v. Saban Force must be propor­tio­nal**

Defense of property is when a defendant is privileged to use a reasonable amount of force to prevent a tort against his property. less than the amount of self-d­efense and almost never deadly Katko v. Briney (Brine­y's­/sh­otg­un/­bedroom in inhabited farmhouse) (value of human life outweighs potential property damage exception applies only when trespasser is committing a violence w/pote­ntial to endanger human life) **Brown v. Martinez (Martinez injuries brown while he was stealing waterm­elons from D property) (no privilege to use any force calculated to cause serios injury or death when ONLY property is threat­ened).

Consent (2nd restat­ement) is willin­gness in fact for conduct to occur. It may be manifested by action or inaction and need not to be commun­icated to the actor. If words or conduct are reasonably understood by another to be intended as consent, they constitute apparent consent and are as effective as consent. Robin v. Harris / officer + prisoner / no consent / power difference Kaplan v. Mamelak / Dr limited to procedures consent was for or compli­cation * Doe v. Johnson / HIV / req. To disclose disease, held liable if know or infer from lifestyle

Public necessity is a defense that can be used against charges of trespass. There are three elements of public necessity: (1) public rather than just private interest involved, (2) D had reasonable belief action was necessary and (3) action taken was reasonable response to need. Surocco v. Geary / house destroyed stop fire/ tortious actions can be undertaken for greater interests of society Private necessity: an entry upon land to save personal goods which are in danger of being lost or destroyed by water or fire is not a trespass. One may sacrifice the personal property of another to save his life or the lives of fellows. Ploof v. Putnam / storm + family Vincent v. Lake Erie Trans. Co. / steamship – cargo – storm / party acting under private necessity is liable for damages incurred to property of others*