Torts

Elements of Battery §101 and §102

(a) The actor intends to cause contact with the person of the other (b) the actors affirmative contact causes such contact (c) the contact --> causes bodily harm to the other; OR --> is offensive and (d) the other does not consent

What Constitutes Conversion

1. Conversion is an intentional exercise of 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. 2. In determining the seriousness of the interference and the justice of requiring the actor to pay the full value, the following factors are important: (a) the extent and duration of the actor's exercise of dominion or control; (b) the actor's intent to assert a right in fact inconsistent with the other's right of control; (c) the actor's good faith; (d) the extent and duration of the resulting interference with the other's right of control; (e) the harm done to the chattel; (f) the inconvenience and expense caused to the other.

i. Crabtree v. Dawson

1. Defendant mistakes plaintiff for someone trying to crash his party after being kicked out. Someone warns of potential danger right by the crasher before plaintiff runs up the stairs, and defendant warned "not to come up here." Defendant hit plaintiff in the face with butt of gun. The Court reversed after trial court entered judgement for the defendant because of bad jury instructions, but it said he might still not be liable. [treat as NL] Rule: "If he used no more force than was necessary. Or appeared to him to be necessary, for this purpose, then he is excused on the ground of self-defense and apparent necessity." §65

Katko v. Briney

1. Defendants set up a spring gun in their unoccupied house (full of glass) after having multiple trespassers. Plaintiff was shot and lost much of his leg because of the spring gun. The trial returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the Court affirmed. 1. Rule: "The law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights in property. There is no privilege to use any force calculated to cause death or serious bodily injury to repel threat to land or chattel. If he is present, he may use force to repel a trespass which is reasonably necessary to effect the repulse." Proportionality was violated by defendants.

§ 892C Consent to Crime

1. Except as stated in subsection (2), consent is effective to bar recovery in a tort action although the conduct consented to is a crime. 2. If conduct is made criminal in order to protect a certain class of persona irrespective of their consent, the consent of members of that class to the conduct is not effective to bar a tort action.

§ 892B Consent Under Mistake, Misrepresentations or Duress

1. If a person is induced to consent by a substantial mistake and the mistake is known to the other or is induced by the other's misrepresentation, the consent is not effective.

§166 Non-Liability for Accidental Intrusions (illustrations)

1. Illustration 1. A is walking along the sidewalk of a public highway close to the border of B's land. Without fault on his part, A slips on a piece of ice, and falls against and breaks a plate glass window in B's store adjoining the sidewalk. A is NOT liable to B. 2. Illustration 4. A is carefully driving his well-broken horses on a highway. Frightened by a locomotive, they become unmanageable and run away, striking and damaging an iron post on B's land. A is NOT liable to B.

§57 Fraud or Mistake as Collateral Matter

1. Illustration 1. A, to induce B to submit to intimate familiarities, offers her a paper which A represents to be a twenty-dollar bill but which he knows to be counterfeit. B, believing the paper to be a genuine bill, submits. A is NOT liable to B for battery.

IIED Illustrations i. § 46 - comment f - illustration 9

1. Illustration 9. A, an eccentric and mentally deficient old maid, had the delusion that a pot of gold is buried in her backyard and is always digging for it. Knowing this, B buries a pot with other contents in her yard, and when A digs it up causes her to be escorted to the city hall in triumph, where the pot is opened under circumstances of public humiliation to A. A suffers severe emotional disturbance and resulting illness. B is subject to liability to A for both.

Richard Wright Approach - another economic approach to risks and precautions:

1. It is not negligent to impose significant risks on others only when: a. Plaintiffs are participants in an activity that's generating the risks, or b. The activity being engaged in is socially valuable 2. Even if it's (a) or (b), the risks imposed on others are only reasonable if the risks are: a. Not too serious b. Necessary/unavoidable c. Reduced to the maximum extent feasible without causing unacceptable loss in the desired benefit; and d. Significantly outweighed by the desired benefit. 3. Example: the ford trucks with the engines the company knew were likely to explode.

OUTRAGE §46 Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress

1. One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability from such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm. 2. Where such conduct is directed at a third party, the actor is subject to liability if he intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress: (a) to a member of such person's immediate family who is present at the time, whether or not such distress results in bodily harm, or (b) to any other person who is present at the time, if such distress results in bodily harm.

§ 164 Intrusions Under Mistake

1. One who intentionally enters land in possession of another is subject to liability as a trespasser, although he acts under a mistaken belief, however reasonable, not induced by the conduct of the possessor, that he: (a) is in possession of the land, or (b) has the consent of the possessor or an agent of the possessor, or (c) has some other privilege to enter and remain.

§ 228 Exceeding Authorized Use

1. One who is authorized to make a particular use of a chattel, and uses it in a manner exceeding the authorization, is subject to liability for conversion to another whose right to control the use of the chattel is thereby seriously violated.

Breach of Duty - the Reasonable Person - Age Purtle v. Shelton

1. Plaintiff (age 17) sued defendant (age 16) for negligence when plaintiff shot defendant on accident while hunting. The jury found both parties equally negligent, and under the state rule, plaintiff recovered no damages. The court affirmed. 2. Rule: If a minor is to be held to an adult standard of care, he must be engaging in an activity that is (a) dangerous to others and (b) normally engaged in only by adults.

Breach of Duty - the Reasonable Person - Age Roberts v. Ring

1. Plaintiff sued defendant (age 77) for negligent driving when defendant hit plaintiff's son (age 7). The jury brought a verdict for defendant, and the appellate court held for plaintiff, finding improper jury instructions. 2. Yes - take a child's age into account. No - do not take an older adult's age into account. a. The Court reasoned that defendant's infirmities presented only a reason why defendant should refrain from operating an automobile on a crowded street where care was required to avoid injuring other travelers. b. Children do not know their limits like a person who is a mature adult.

Breach of Duty - the Reasonable Person - mental ability and mental states Fredericks v. Castora - (NL)

1. Plaintiff sued defendant (professional truck driver) for negligent driving, contending that he should be held to a higher standard because he's a professional. The jury entered a verdict for defendant, and the court affirmed. 2. Rule: There is only one degree of care in the law, and that is the standard of care which may reasonable be required or expected under all the circumstances of a given standard.

Risks and Precautions: U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co.

1. Plaintiff sued defendant for negligence when defendant did not leave a bargee with the barge, and the barge got loose, hit a propeller of another boat, and sank with its cargo. A third party also untied the boat and negligently tied it back. 2. Third party: small burden to tie boat correctly, nice sized probability it would untie, and large magnitude of potential damages. - L 3. Defendant: regular burden for bargee to be present, unknown probability of accident, and large magnitude of potential damages. - L

Breach of Duty - the Reasonable Person - mental ability and mental states Lynch v. Rosenthal (L)

1. Plaintiff sued defendant for negligence when defendant didn't warn plaintiff of dangerous machinery, and plaintiff was injured; plaintiff had mental retardation. The court found for plaintiff. 2. Rule: Mental deficiency is taken into account when the plaintiff asserts it, plaintiff was the injured party, and defendant knew of plaintiff's deficiency and didn't use reasonable care to warn plaintiff of dangers. a. In this case, defendant knew of the limitation of plaintiff but did not use his duty to take them into consideration.

Breach of Duty - the Reasonable Person - physical infirmities David v. Feinstein - L

1. Plaintiff sued defendant for negligence when defendant left cellar door opening, causing blind plaintiff to fall in. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, and the court affirmed. 2. Rule: Due care for a blind man includes a reasonable effort to compensate for his unfortunate affliction by the use of artificial aids for discerning obstacles in his path. 3. § 283C

Breach of Duty - the Reasonable Person - physical infirmities Kerr v. Connecticut Co. - (NL)

1. Plaintiff sued defendant for negligence when defendant trolley hit plaintiff's decedent. The trial court found for defendant, and the appellate court affirmed. 2. Plaintiff's decedent was an older man with poor hearing. Defendant sounded his gong at decedent to avert him from the trolley line, but it didn't work. 3. Rule: A person should exercise that care for his own safety which a reasonably prudent man would exercise under the same circumstances. a. In this case, the court held that Kerr should have acted as a reasonably prudent deaf man would. (§283c)

Breach of Duty - the Reasonable Person - mental ability and mental states Weirs v. Jones County - (NL)

1. Plaintiff sued defendant for negligence when plaintiff suffered injuries because plaintiff could not read the sign warning him of the danger. The jury brought a verdict for defendant, and the appellate court affirmed. a. The jury was instructed that if the signs were in a conspicuous place and were of such construction as to give warning to a person of ordinary care, then the fact that the plaintiff was unable to read English would be no excuse. 2. Rule: Plaintiff cannot be allowed to claim that some standard of care shall be applied to him which is not applicable to persons in general.

Breach of Duty - the Reasonable Person - mental ability and mental states William v Hays

1. Plaintiff sued defendant for negligent conduction of a ship. 1st: Jury found for defendant, and appellate court reversed and remanded. 2nd: Trial judge gave directed verdict for the plaintiff, and appellate court reversed and remanded again. 2. Rule: An insane person is just as responsible for his torts as a sane person. 3. This case is often cited as the proposition that lunacy is no defense to a negligence claim. a. However, "if defendant had become insane solely in consequence of his efforts to save the vessel during the storm, it might be claimed that his lack of care ought not be attributed to him as a fault."

Breach of Duty - the Reasonable Person - mental ability and mental states Vaughn v. Menlove (L)

1. Plaintiff sued defendant for negligently building a chimney through a stack of hay. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, and the appellate court affirmed. 2. Defendant tried to argue he wasn't as smart as the average person. 3. Rule: The standard of care is what care a prudent/reasonable person would have taken in the situation. 4. § 283B

Hart v. Geysel (consenting to fight)

1. Two people illegally fighting had expressly consented. Plaintiff not liable for battery. §892

Reasonable Person Illustrations: § 299A Undertaking in Profession or Trade

1. Unless he represents that he has greater or less skill or knowledge, one who undertakes to render services in the practice of a profession or trade is required to exercise the skill and knowledge normally possessed by members of that profession or trade in good standing in similar communities. 2. Comment b. This Section... applies to any person who undertakes to render services to another in the practice of a profession, such as that of physician or surgeon, dentist, pharmacist, oculist, attorney, accountant, or engineer. It applies also to any person who undertakes to render services to others in the practice of a skilled trade, such as that of airplane pilot, precision machinist, electrician, carpenter, blacksmith, or plumber.

Neal v Neal (cheating husband)

1. Wife sued husband for battery after she found out he was cheating because she said her consent was given under a fraudulent situation. 1. Although Thomas deceived Mary as to the exclusivity of their relationship, it did not directly or substantially relate to the essential nature of the physical contact she consented to. no battery

Scope of Consent

??

prima facie case

A case in which the plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence of his or her claim that the case will be decided for the plaintiff unless the defendant produces evidence to rebut it.

a. Desnick v. American Broadcasting Co. (eye dr investigation)

ABC sent employees disguised as patients to Desnick Eye Center to. They took footage and put it in an episode of Prime Time Live, which was highly critical of the practices at Desnick. Plaintiff sued for trespass, and the Court affirmed dismissal of trespass . Fraud does not always negate consent - think of battery with fraud as a collateral matter some fraud has to happen for business -- think restaurant critics NL

IIED Illustrations i. § 46 - comment D

Comment d. The liability clearly does NOT extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. The conduct must be beyond all possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized community, as to make an average member of the community exclaim, "Outrageous!"

IIED Illustrations i. § 46 - comment f

Comment f. The extreme and outrageous character of the conduct may arise from the actor's knowledge that the other is peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress, by reason of some physical or mental condition or peculiarity.

Wright v. Haffke

Defendant shot plaintiff in the back after him and his friend broke into his store, knocked him off balance, and tried to steal from the register. The jury brought a verdict for the defendant, and the Court affirmed. 1. Rule: The crime committed usually determines how much force can be used. "For minor thefts, the use of a firearm would not be justified, but for more serious felonies, such as robbery, the use may be justified. 1. Whether the force used exceeded permissible limits is a question for the jury under proper instructions.

Hand Formula Defendant Argument:

Defendant will try to make B look big and P look small

Hollerud v. Malamis

Drunk plaintiff challenged defendant, who was a bar tender and knew the plaintiff was intoxicated, and defendant accepted. Plaintiff was injured, sued for battery Rule: When intoxicated, a plaintiff is incapable of expressing rational will, and consent is ineffective when party knows of this state.

Vosburg v. Putney (kick)

Facts- Little boy innocently kicks another little boy during school causing injury Holding- If you intend to touch even without intent to harm and that touching is unlawful you maybe liable for injuries the actor need not intend to cause harm or offense

Reasonable Person Illustrations: § 283C Physical Disability

If the actor is ill or otherwise physically disabled, the standard of conduct to which he must conform to avoid being negligent is that of a reasonable man under like disability.

Reasonable Person Illustrations: § 289 Recognizing Existence of Risk

Illustration 13. A: a chemist, knows that certain chemicals have such an attraction to one another that if placed near together they are apt to generate explosive or inflammable gases. A is required to realize the peril of placing such substances close together, although a lawman would not be required to realize this danger.

Hand Forumla Liable or Not Liable?

LIABLE - B<PL NOT liable - B>PL

Distinction in Laidlaw and Polmatier

Laidlaw: actions of self preservation from immediate harm are not considered voluntary Polmatier: contact made as a result of involuntary movements do not satisfy the requirement of affirmative conduct for a battery claim. and insane person actions are still voluntary (in the moment he shot)

Palmer v. Mayo

Liable i. Plaintiff sued defendant for conversion after loaning him a horse and buggy to do business out of town. On the way there, he let a family friend borrow the buggy, and the town men wrecked it, ruining the buggy and killing the horse. The Court affirmed the trial courts verdict for the plaintiff after defendant appealed on mis-instruction. ii. "I thought it was Mayo's carriage." Mistaken belief does not matter. 1. Illustration 3

A allows B to stain his face with walnut juice. B assumes that A knows that walnut juice produces a lasting stain. Though this is a matter of common knowledge. Alan is in fact ignorant of it. Is B liable to A for battery?

No, Alan's consent bars a battery claim B would have to know that A did not know

is the intent to do harm required for liability for assault and battery? is he liable for damages when they are unforeseen?

No. Just the intend to make contact. Yes they are liable for damages see Putney v Vosburg

§ 226 Conversion by Destruction or Alteration

One who intentionally destroys a chattel or so materially alters its physical condition as to change its identity or character is subject to liability for conversion to another who is in possession of the chattel or entitled to its immediate possession.

Grabowski v Quigley (diff dr back surgery)

P injured back and consented to surgery by D but doctors got switched on him and he was injured after D was liable because the surgery was not an emergency and you cannot transfer consent to another person

Morgan v Lavacomo (shoplifting)

P sued store manager after he followed her out and took her bag from her cause he thought she was shoplifting D was liable offensive contact on an extension of the person when done in a rude manner is sufficient for the contact element of battery

Werth v Taylor (blood transfusion)

P was giving birth and lost a lot of blood but signed a refusal to permit blood transfusion Dr did a transfusion because she was going to die 1. Rule: "If there is immediate, serious threat of injury to a plaintiff or if there is an emergency to justify proceeding without consent, such as in emergency situations, then consent can be implied."

Cohen v Smith (religion birth)

P went to deliver a baby but warned the hospital against religious preference to not be seen naked by another man male nurse assisted in the birth and she sued for battery Rule: Typically, the test for what is offensive is what would be offensive to an ordinary personal not unduly sensitive as to personal dignity, except when the defendant has special reason to know the plaintiff is offended by the contact. But the hospital knew and thats why this is a problem

Hand Forumla Plaintiff Argument:

Plaintiff will try to make B look small and P look big It is plaintiff's burden to identify different precautions defendant should have taken, so plaintiff will want to pick cheap precautions.

elements of trespass

Restatement 2d Torts § 158 Liability for Intentional Intrusions on Land One is subject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected interest of the other, if he intentionally: (a) enters the land in possession of the other, or causes a thing or third person to do so, OR (b) remains on the land, OR (c) fails to remove from the land a thing which he is under a duty to remove.

Outrage - higher standard for IIED claims for public figures applies ONLY to?

Speech (1st Amendment issue), not conduct (Van Duyn).

i. § 158 Liability for Intentional Intrusions on Land

The actor, without himself entering the land, may invade another interest in its exclusive possession by throwing, propelling, or placing a thing either on or beneath the surface of the land or in the air space above it.

Reasonable Person Illustrations: § 283B Mental Deficiency

Unless the actor is a child, his insanity or other mental deficiency does not relieve the actor from liability for conduct which does not conform to the standard of a reasonable man under like circumstances.

Reasonable Person Illustrations: § 283 Conduct of a Reasonable Man; The Standard

Unless the actor is a child, the standard of conduct to which he must conform to avoid being negligent is that of a reasonable man under like circumstances.

Outrage - surprising PTSD veteran w/ firecrackers

Where defendant knowingly exploits plaintiff's heightened vulnerability to inflict emotional distress, courts are more willing to let the claim go to a jury.

what counts as a contact?

a contact is the intentional touching of the person of another or anything that is connected with or in contact with the other person (D knew with substantial certainty that the contact was likely to result from her act) OR intentionally putting into motion anything with touches the person of another or anything that is connected with or in contact with the other persons

elements of trespass (to land)

a) enters the land in possession of an other, or causes a thing or third person to do so, OR b) remains on the land OR c) fails to remove from the land a thing which he is under duty to remove

Illustration 3 for Intrusions Under Mistake

a. A employs a surveyor of recognized ability to make a survey of his land. The survey shows that a particular strip of land is within his boundaries. In consequence, A clears this land of timber and prepares it for cultivation. In fact, the survey is mistaken and the strip in question in part of the tract owned by his neighbor, B. A is subject to liability to B.

Laidlaw v Sage (bomb)

boss shielded himself with his secretary due to someone having a bomb Rule: actions taken for self preservation or immediate, serious harm are not considered voluntary

Brzoska v. Olson

dentist w AIDs did work on patients he passed away and P sued for battery claiming they would not consented to his touch if they knew he had AIDS none of the Ps got AIDS and could not show reasonable fear for contracting AIDS Rule: battery consists of a touching of a substantially different nature and character than that which the plaintiff consented Rule" the offensive character of a contact in a battery case is assessed by a reasonable standard. their fear was not reasonable BECAUSE the dr did not subject them to anything that would give them AIDS they consented to dental work and thats what they got

Mohr v Williams (left / right ear)

dr operated on a different ear that the P originally consented there was no immediate danger to the P so there is no implied consent to the other operation on the the other ear emergency situations could have implied consent but otherwise D is liable

White v. Uni of Idaho (piano teacher)

eggshell plaintiff teacher touched a student on back (he did intend to touch her) and the student suffered injuries the contact took her by surprise and was not consented to --> offensive did not consent to the type of touch -- a reasonable person would have not consent to this kind of touch

Wiseman v. Schaffer (tow truck case)

i. Defendant owns a tow-truck business and received a call from a person who wanted his truck towed. He left $30 and was not present for the towing. The truck was stolen from the welding shop he towed it too. Defendant later finds out the caller was an imposter, and Schaffer sued for conversion. ii. Defendant is liable for conversion because his mistake does not excuse his actions. 1. Illustrations 2 & 3 iii. Policy: Tow truck drivers will be more careful and only tow cars when the owner is present.

Malouf v. Dallas Athletic County Club

i. Gold balls went onto plaintiff's property. He sued for trespass, and the defendant won judgement. The Court affirmed. 1. Could a reasonable fact finer conclude defendant didn't commit trespass?

Peggy v. Gray (fox hunt)

i. Peggy loosed his dogs on defendant's land to hunt foxes. The trial court entered summary judgement for the defendant, and the Court reversed. 1. Could a reasonable fact finder conclude defendant committed a trespass?

Outrage - Roberts v. Saylor

i. Plaintiff had surgery at hospital defendant worked at. Defendant fixed first doctors mistakes, but he did not want to help plaintiff with med mal suit against him, stating he "hates people like that." Plaintiff was in hospital for another surgery, and defendant said insults to her in the op room. Plaintiff sued for IIED, and the Court affirmed trial court's summary judgement for defendant. ii. Rule: Liability does not arise from mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty expressions, or other trivialities. § 46 Comment d

Outrage - Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

i. Plaintiff posted an ad about defendant, a minister and political leader, insinuating the defendant had his "first time" with his mom in an outhouse. Plaintiff sued, and the S.C. reversed after trial court entered judgement for defendant. ii. Rule: "Public figures or public official may not recover for the tort of IIED by reason of publications unless the publication contains a false statement of fact with was made was 'actual malice.' i.e. with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true."

Outrage - Figueiredo-Torres v. Nickel

i. Plaintiff sued defendant for IIED after defendant, who was the plaintiff and his wife's marriage counselor, engaged in an extramarital affair with plaintiff's wife and encouraged plaintiff to separate from her. The Court reversed after the trail court dismissed the complaint. ii. Rule: The extreme and outrageous character of the defendant's conduct may arise from his abuse of a position, or relation with another person, which gives him actual or apparent authority over him, or power to affect his interests. iii. Plaintiff was "particularly susceptible" to emotional distress, and defendant knew. 1. § 46 Comment f Illustration 9

Spooner v. Manchester (lost horse and carriage)

i. Plaintiff sued defendant for conversion of a horse after plaintiff loaned the horse to defendant to go to a town. At all times believing he was going toward the town, plaintiff got lost along the way and used his best efforts to get back on track to the town. The Court reversed the trial court's ruling for the plaintiff. ii. The defendant here "did not intent to assert a right in fact consistent with plaintiff's right of control" since he was acting inside the scope of consent at all time. 1. Illustration 5

Russel-Vaughn Ford, Inc. v. Rouse (holding onto car keys)

i. Plaintiff sued the Ford House for conversion when they with held his keys from him for hours in order to cause him panic and stress. The Court affirmed the trial court's verdict for the plaintiff. ii. This is a situation where the actor's bad faith cuts against him and makes him liable for conversion. 1. Illustration 4 iii. Rule: "It is refusal without legal means, to deliver a chattel, which constitutes a conversion." L

Outrage - Greer v. Medders

i. Plaintiff underwent surgery and was assigned defendant as doctor when his original doctor went on vacation. Defendant never visited, and when plaintiff's wife complained about it, defendant shows up and said many rude statements to plaintiff and his wife. The Court reversed after the trial court granted summary judgement to the defendant. ii. The Court found this to be a question for the jury to decide.

Outrage - Muratore v. M/S Scotia Prince

i. Plaintiff was a passenger on defendant's cruise when the agents of defendant's continued to take pictures of plaintiff after she expressed that she didn't want her photo taken. They photoshopped her photos and showed them to everyone, and they followed her around the whole trip, confining her to her cabin. The Court reversed after the trial court's dismissal the complaint. ii. Rule: "In appropriate cases, 'severe' emotional distress may be inferred from the 'extreme and outrageous' nature of the defendant's actions." 1. § 46 Comment f Illustration 9

Outrage - Walko v. Kean College

i. Plaintiff was a prof and assistant to the dean at a college, and the school newspaper put a fake ad out about a phone sex hotline that had her listed as a person to call. It was parodied off an allegedly real hotline offered by admin. Plaintiff sued, and the Court dismissed her claim. ii. The Court found plaintiff to be a limited purpose public figure because she had "status in the community" and "the nature of the issue" was based in a subject that was current controversy.

Outrage - Van Duyn v. Smith

i. Plaintiff was an abortion director after defendant protested her by following her around, confronting her at the airport and interfering with her comings and goings there, picketed her residence and workplace, published disparaging posters, and distributed the posters to people. Plaintiff sued, and the Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint. ii. Rule: Public figures are people who: (a) are intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions, or (b) by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large. iii. Court determined the plaintiff was not a "public figure," either all purpose or limited, and the jury needed to look at the facts and decide.

Outrage - Pemberton v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

i. Plaintiff, union member boss, claimed defendant, co., hired a private investigator who circulated his mug shots amongst the union members and caused the end of his marriage with his wife, since they told her on his affair. Plaintiff sued for IIED, and the Court affirmed the trial court summary judgement for defendant. ii. The Court said the plaintiff did not plead or show the degree of distress required to meet the elements. It seemed to suggest he could hang because of his "tough guy" personality.

Mistake Re: Collateral Matter

if D knows P is only consenting because P is mistaken about the nature of the contact, P's consent wont bar a battery claim against D

examples of transferred intent and "transferred" transferred intent

if a boy threw the frisbee while his friend back was turned and then hit another person, he is liable if a boy threw the frisbee at his friend while they were both engaging in playing and he accidentally hit another person, not liable

when is contact offensive?

if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity

Consent Under Mistake, Misrepresentation or Duress

if the person consenting to the conduct of another is induced by consent of a substantial mistake concerning the nature of the invasion of his interest or the extend of the harm to be expected from it and the mistake is known to the other or is induced by the other's misrepresentation the consent is not effect for the unexpected invasion or harm

Implied consent (Wallace v Rosen)

if you out in public, there are general occurrences where people will unavoidably touch you

two different types of consent

implied in fact: a. A reasonable person would interpret plaintiff's words, actions, or inactions to indicate consent. § 892B or implied in law : Under the circumstances, the law presumes consent to further certain policy goals.

Garratt v Dailey

kid pulled chair out from underneath a lady and she fell and broke her hip rule: D does not need to make contact with P or anything connected to P. It is enough for the D to cause plaintiff to make harmful contact with something else he made her have contact with the floor

Hand Formula L:

loss that would result if the accident were to occur (magnitude of the harm)

Madden v DC Transit System (smoke)

man sued transit for smoke D was not liable the act was not intended at any person and it was not wrongful go stand somewhere else

Leichtman v WLW Jacor Communications Inc (smoke)

non smoker who always talked about it got second hand smoke blown in this face by someone else Rule: you do not have to touch the person with your own body. smoke is tangible enough to come into contact with the person the other person intended the contact and it was offensive to the P

is determining a contact as offensive subjective or objective?

objective would a reasonable P find the contact offensive?

Hand Formula P:

probability of the accident occurring without the precaution

Polmatier v Russ (father killer)

rule: to satisfy intent, D's reasons don't need to be rational but they must be voluntary man killed his father while having an episode Ct rules in favor of P contact made as the result of involuntary movements do not satisfy the requirements of affirmative conduct for a battery claim

to satisfy the intent requirement of battery the P must?

show that D intended to make contact but does not have to show that D intended the contact to be harmful or offensive

Wallace v Rosen (fire alarm case)

teacher adjusted mother trying to enter the building during a fire drill and the mother fell down the stairs all elements of battery were met BUT the contact was not harmful or offensive Rule: some kinds of contact are inevitable granted the circumstances (implied consent) --> this touch was customary and reasonable the redirection of the mother was not offensive D is not liable

Hand Forumla B:

the "burden" or cost of the untaken precaution that plaintiff claims defendant should have used

Outrage - distinction between Muratore and Pemberton

the relationship between the parties and the ROLE they're in. Pemberton is a union boss negotiating with management in a tough position. Muratore was a customer who could expect kindness from the people who were servicing her trip. It's the difference between truthful information versus sick amusement.

Outrage - distinction between Roberts and Greer

the relationship between the parties. Greer was in a contractual relationship with the doctor, while Roberts was not. The Court is skeptical of conduct outside of a contractual relationship, when in a professional setting.

Minimum requirements of Battery

the requirement that the defendant must commit or cause a harmful or offensive touching of the plaintiff

Knight v Jewett (touch football)

touch football case P expressly did not consent -- told him not to play rough with her P told D to stop and D unintentionally stepped on P's finger and P had to get it cut off court found that D did not intend to make the contact that caused the injury and did not satisfy the first element of battery argument is that the push was the one the D intended but did not mean to actually step on the hand

Manning v. Grimsley (baseball throw)

transferred intent pitcher fake threw a ball but let go and actually hit someone

McNeil v Mullin (fight)

two people started to fight P sue D for battery D argued that the P consented Rule: Consent to an unlawful act is no defense to a claim of battery. Either party can collect damages from the other. §892

can a insane person form the necessary intent to commit a battery?

under Polmatier yes, the intent by the insane person does not have to be rational they can still act voluntarily the affirmative conduct of D's actions must be voluntary

Legal Principle of Vosburg

when a defendant commits a battery, she's liable for the resulting injuries, even if they are unforeseeable

Issues with Consent

when consent is implied, either by fact or by law when contact is outside the scope of consent when consent is induced by fraud / mistake when P has consented to a fight or other crime when P lacks capacity to give consent

Intent

§8A is used to denote that the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it D has to intend the consequences of that act