Torts #1 [W24]

What is shopkeeper's privilege?

A shopkeeper has a privilege to detain a suspected shoplifter for investigation. Must have: - reasonable belief - reasonable manner - detained for reasonable period of time

Characterize the exception to the reasonably prudent person standard for relevant physical characteristics.

- where relevant, incorporate Defendant's physical characteristics e.g., if defendant is blind, the standard is that of a reasonably prudent person who is blind.

Characterize how protective privileges allow for reasonable force.

- no duty to retreat in majority of states - no use of deadly force to protect property (unless invasion also entails serious threat of bodily harm)

What are the 2 methods of physical invasion?

1. by person 2. by object

Characterize implied consent.

1. custom and usage 2. body language consent

What are the 4 traditional elements of a prima facie case of negligence are:

1. duty 2. breach 3. causation: - factual - proximate 4. damages

Characterize the necessity defenses to property torts.

1. public necessity defense: defendant acts in emergency to protect community - absolute defense 2. private necessity: defendant acts in emergency to protect own interests - limited or qualified defense: ◘ must pay compensatory damages ◘ but not liable for nominal/punitive damages ◘ can remain as long as emergency continues

Characterize protective privileges.

1. self-defense 2. defense of others 3. defense of property

Characterize false imprisonment.

(1) act of restraint (2) plaintiff confined in bounded area

Characterize intentional infliction of emotional distress.

(1) extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) severe emotional distress

Characterize battery.

(1) harmful or offensive contact (2) with the π's person

Characterize trespass to land.

(1) physical invasion (2) of land

Characterize assault.

(1) reasonable apprehension (2) of immediate battery: - words alone lack immediacy - BUT words can destroy immediacy

Characterize the hallmarks of outrageousness.

- conduct is repetitive in nature - defendant is a common carrier or innkeeper - plaintiff is member of a fragile class: (i) young (ii) elderly (iii) pregnant

Characterize the defense of consent.

- defense to all intentional torts - must have legal capacity

To whom do you owe a duty?

- foreseeable victims (the class of persons who were foreseeably endangered by the defendant's negligent conduct) - within the zone of danger

Characterize the reasonably prudent person standard.

- hypothetical person (objective standard, measured against what the average person would do) - no allowance for Defendant's shortcomings - objective standard

Characterize the exception to the reasonably prudent person standard for superior skill or knowledge.

- hypothetical reasonably prudent person with same superior skill or knowledge

Dolores, who was worried about a series of burglaries in her neighborhood, purchased a gun for protection. That evening, Paul, who was homeless and trying to get out of the cold, entered her garage through an unlocked door. Dolores heard some noise as Paul began rummaging around for some blankets. She opened the door to the garage with her gun in hand. Pointing it in Paul's direction in an attempt to frighten Paul away, she shouted, "Get out or I'll shoot!" and fired what she thought was a warning shot into the ceiling. Unfortunately, the bullet ricocheted and struck Paul in the shoulder. Paul sues Dolores for battery.​ ​ Will Paul win?

Depends. Here, Dolores placed Paul in reasonable apprehension of an immediate battery. She acted with the goal of causing him to think he was about to be shot/anticipate a bullet wound. The plan was to "scare" him, but instead the bullet struck Paul in the shoulder. Thus, Dolores is liable under the transferred intent doctrine. Will Dolores have an affirmative defense? Defense of property would be unsuccessful because deadly force cannot be used to scare trespassers off land. She may be able to argue self-defense. To succeed on this defense, Dolores must show she had a reasonable belief she was going to be attacked. Most jxd's treat a home invasion as a reasonable belief of immediate harm. But will depend whether the garage and Paul's placement counts as a home invasion for which self-defense may be used.

D owns and manages an apartment building in an upscale and generally safe neighborhood of a large city. There is a garage that is part of the apartment building and a door that leads from the garage out to the street. The door is designed to be opened only from the inside so you can exit out to the street, but it is not supposed to be opened from the street. However, D unreasonably failed to maintain the door. As a result, the door was able to be opened from the street side. One evening P, who does not live in the building, is walking down the street when she is accosted by a mugger. The mugger, not wanting to commit a crime in plain view on the street, tries the door and is able to open it. He drags P through the door and into D's apartment garage where he robs her, and then flees. P sues D for negligence, citing their poor maintenance of the garage door. Did D owe P a duty of care?

No, Paula was not in the zone of danger nor was she a foreseeable victim. Here, the foreseeable victims were the resident/tenants who lived in the Deluxe Apartment Building. They were the most predictable and likely victims to be accosted and burglarized by somebody who came into the building via the defective door. Persons merely walking down the street were not foreseeable victims. However, this contention turns on the fact that the apartment building was located in a safe, low crime neighborhood.

D taps P on the shoulder and asks, "Do you know where the restroom is located?" P has a phobia of being tapped on the shoulder. P has a panic attack and sues D for battery. Will P recover in a lawsuit against D for the claim of battery?

No, this is not the type of offensive contact.

Zone of danger

The area within which injury or other loss to the plaintiff is foreseeable.

P is reading in the library when D approaches P's table and sits down. D strokes P's hair, while telling P how much he really likes her. P brings a claim against D for battery. Was this an offensive touching?

The contact was not harmful. But it is unpermitted, i.e., it is a contact that would be deemed offensive to a reasonable person.

P and D are playing tennis. D runs towards P swinging her tennis racket intending to scare P. As she nears P, D slips and the racket injures P. Does P have a valid battery claim against D?

Yes, based on transferred intent. For assault, P had the intent for battery. It was her purpose, desire, and/or aim to make D think he was going to be hit. P also placed D in a position of reasonable apprehension.

D is a crop duster who was hired by a farmer to spray his crops with insecticide. The farmer accidentally gave D the wrong parcel number. As a result, D sprayed P's land while P was away instead of the farmer's. P is an organic farmer, so when P discovered that his crops were now covered in chemicals, he realized that the organic supermarkets he sells to would refuse to accept them and that he would have to sell them at much lower prices to conventional supermarkets. P sues D for trespass to land. Will P win?

Yes, this was a physical invasion by Dusty onto Peter's land.

What is offensive contact?

a contact will be deemed offensive if unpermitted by a reasonable person

What is duty?

a legally imposed obligation to take risk reducing precautions for benefit of others

For trespass to land, part of the plaintiff's protected land interest includes

air above and soil beneath to a reasonable distance

Rescuers are foreseeable plaintiffs when:

danger invites rescue defendant negligently put themselves or a third person in peril

On the exam, how should you go about analyzing the elements of negligence?

duty = questions of law breach = predominately about facts causation = logic and policy damages = facts and law

What is extreme and outrageous conduct?

exceeds all bounds of decency tolerated in a civilized society.

What is "plaintiff's person?"

incliudes anything π is touching/holding

What is the intent necessary for trespass to chattels and conversion?

intent to do act that brings about the interference

What is conversion?

intentional interference with Plaintiff's personal property so serious that warrants Defendant pay property's full value

What is trespass to chattels?

intentional interference with Plaintiff's personal property that warrants Defendant pay damages

What is apprehension?

knowledge

For false imprisonment, an area must be "bounded," meaning freedom of movement must be limited in all directions. In other words, there must be:

no reasonable means of escape known to plaintiff

For the intentional tort of trespass to land, is awareness of a boundary needed?

no, deliberate act is all that is required

A duty of care is owed to all foreseeable plaintiffs within the zone of danger. What is the applicable standard of care for this duty? That is, how much risk reduction is required?

reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances

Trespass to chattels vs. conversion.

small harm = trespass to chattels big harm = conversion

For trespass to land, the physical invasion must be ______________.

tangible, i.e., by a person or object

Intent is

the desire to produce the legally forbidden consequence

Exceeding the scope of consent will result in liability. True or false?

true

For assault, the ∆ must have knowledge of the act. True or false?

true

For false imprisonment, the plaintiff must know of the confinement or be harmed by it. True or false?

true

Protective privileges require proper timing and reasonable accuracy. True or false?

true

There are no incapacity defenses in intentional torts. True or false?

true

What is express consent?

words giving permission exceptions for fraud/duress

Characterize transferred intent.

∆ has intent but: - different consequences or - different victim - different consequence against different victim ∆ will still be liable