Intentional Torts

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Intentional Torts by Mind Map: Intentional Torts

1. What is Intent?

1.1. Specific Intent

1.1.1. D desires the cause the consequence of his act

1.2. General Intent

1.2.1. D knows with substantial certainty that the consequence of their act will occur Substantial certainty occurs if D knew that their actions would result in the consequence

1.3. Single Intent

1.3.1. Only need to show that D intended to cause contact with P's person

1.4. Dual Intent

1.4.1. Must show that D intended to cause contact with P's person AND intended to cause harm or offense with that contact

1.5. Transferred Intent

1.5.1. Intent can be transferred only with torts of: - Assault - Battery - False Imprisonment - Trespass to land - Trespass to chattels

1.5.2. P1T1-->P2T1 P1T1-->P1T2 P1T1-->P2T2

2. Consent

2.1. To prove any intentional tort, P must show that he did not consent to D's actions

2.2. Must ask two questions in regards to consent:

2.2.1. Was there consent?

2.2.2. Was the consent effective?

2.3. Legally effective consent takes several different forms:

2.3.1. Actual consent - Person is subjectively willing for conduct to occur - Does not need to be communicated - Can be expressed or inferred from facts - Subjective standard - Person can revoke their consent at any time

2.3.2. Reasonably apparent consent - A reasonable person in the position of the actor would believe that the other actually consents to the actors otherwise tortious conduct - Guided by “overt acts” and manifestations of feelings - Court must consider “surrounding circumstances” - P’s behavior was such to indicate consent on their part- then D was justified in D’s act--regardless of P’s unexpressed feelings

2.3.3. Substitute consent ie. parent gives consent for their child

2.3.4. Implied-in-law or constructive consent Socially justifiable minor contacts: - Like pushing against someone on a crowded bus or subway - Or people evacuating a building in an emergency situation and people touch while exiting

2.3.5. Emergency doctrine consent No time to obtain consent - a serious medical emergency justifies medical treatment and there is no reason to believe P would not consent

3. Battery

3.1. For D to be liable for battery, P must show (1) something made bodily contact with P; (2) the contact was harmful or offensive; (3) the contact was caused by D; and (4) D intended to cause the contact.

3.1.1. (1) Bodily contact is when something touches P's person. Contact can be direct or indirect. Direct is when D's person touches P's person. Indirect is when D makes something touch P's person

3.1.2. (2) Contact is harmful when it causes bodily harm. Contact is offensive when it would offend a reasonable person's sense of dignity OR when D's contact is highly offensive to P's unusual sensitivity and D knows that the contact will be highly offensive to P

3.1.3. (3) Either D actually touched P OR D caused something else to touch P

3.1.4. (4) D purposefully wanted to cause the harm or offense OR D was substantially certain the harm would occur. If single intent state P must prove D intended to cause contact with P's person. If dual intent state P must prove D intended to cause contact with P's person AND intended to cause harm or offense with that contact

4. Assault

4.1. For D to be liable for assault, P must show (1) D acted intentionally; (2) D tried to cause a harmful or offensive contact OR D put P in imminent apprehension of such contact with P’s person; and (3) P was thereby put in reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm

4.1.1. (1) D purposefully tried to cause contact with P or purposefully wanted P to believe contact was about to occur

4.1.2. (2) D unsuccessfully tried to cause P harmful or offensive contact, OR, D made P believe that harmful or offensive contact was about to immediately occur. The harmful contact would have caused bodily harm, OR, the offensive contact would have offended a reasonable person's sense of dignity OR D's contact would have been highly offensive to P's unusual sensitivity and D knew that the contact would highly offend P. The contact would have touched P or anything attached to P.

4.1.3. (3) P reasonably believed the harmful or offensive contact was about to immediately occur. P does not have to fear the contact, but must be aware of D's threatening act at the time it occurred. Mere words unaccompanied by physical action will not suffice. Conditional threats must appear to be imminent.

5. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

5.1. For D to be liable for IIED, P must show (1) D actions were intentional or reckless; (2) D's conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) D's actions causes P severe emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress causes harm to P.

5.1.1. (1) To show intent, in a single intent state D's actions were done purposely OR in a dule intent state D's actions were done purposely and D meant to cause the outcome OR D was substantially certain the outcome would occure. To show recklessness, D knew or had reason to know there was a probable risk his actions would cause the outcome

5.1.2. (2) Extreme conduct is sufficiently unusual. The conducts intensity and duration are factors in determining if conduct is extreme. Outrageous conduct goes beyond all possible bounds of decency, and is regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. People in authority or certain rolls (like a manager’s conduct to a customer) can be held to higher standards

5.1.3. (3) Emotional distress is severe when it causes P mental suffering, mental anguish, mental or nervous shock, or any highly unpleasant mental reaction, where a reasonable person would be unable to adequately cope with, or endure, the mental stress. Distress must be reasonable and justified under the circumstances--unless P has an unusual sensitivity and D knows of the sensitivity and knows D’s actions will cause P extreme distress D’s actions are repetitive

5.1.4. (4) The emotional distress must cause P bodily harm

6. False Imprisonment

6.1. For D to be liable for false Imprisonment, P must show (1) D intended to confine P; (2) the confinement was within boundaries fixed by D; (3) D’s actions caused such confinement of P; and (4) P is aware of the confinement OR is harmed by it.

6.1.1. (1) D purposefully confined P

6.1.2. (2) D dictated the boundaries of which P was confined

6.1.3. (3) D prevented P from leaving a given area, and P did not have a known reasonable or safe exit to the given area. The confinement may be actual physical barriers OR confinement may occur to duress, where P believes he can not leave because D's threat inspires in P a just fear of injury, reputation, or property. Confinement can be direct, where D was the person who confined P, OR, confinement can be indirect, where D caused the confinement of P although D may not be actually there confining P.

6.1.4. (4) P knows he is being confined OR P is not aware during the confinement but the confinement causes P harm

7. Trespass to Land

7.1. For D to be liable for trespass to land, P must show (1) P is in possession of the land, is entitled to immediate possession, or was the last occupier; (2) D acts intentionally and without P's consent; and (3) D directly or indirectly enters the land.

7.1.1. (1) P is the owner of the land or is about to be the owner of the land.

7.1.2. (2) D purposefully stepped where he stepped, and entered with land without permission. D does not have to know he is trespassing.

7.1.3. (3) To directly enter D personally steps on the land of another. To indirectly enter D causes a third person or thing to enter the land of another, OR D intentionally fails to remove from the land a thing which he is under a duty to remove either by just deciding not to remove it OR by having substantial certainty that he did not remove the thing.

7.1.4. Boundaries - Trespass can occur above or below the surface - An exception is an aircraft flight above the property

7.2. This tort can exist where there is no actual damage, where P simply is entitled to injunctive relief

8. Trespass to Chattels

8.1. For D to be liable for trespass to chattels, P must show (1) P is the possessor or future possessor of the chattel; (2) D intentionally interfered with P’s chattels; (3) the interference dispossessed or intermeddles with P’s chattels; and (4) the interference is so severe that P is entitled to damages in the value of the harm caused to the chattel.

8.1.1. (1) P must own or must be the future owner of the chattel

8.1.2. (2) D purposefully acts upon the chattel, no wrongful motive is necessary and good faith does not relieve D of liability

8.1.3. (3) D dispossesses P when D deprives or evicts P from the rightful possession of property by fraud, duress, barring access to chattel, destroying chattel, or unlawfully taking chattel into custody of the law. D intermeddles with chattel by intentionally bringing physical contact with chattel.

8.1.4. (4) Chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality, or value, possessor is deprived of the use of chattel for a substantial amount of time, OR P suffers bodily or physical harm as a result

8.1.5. Appropriate Use of this Tort - When chattel has been damaged but not lost for a substantial amount of time - When there have been minor interferences

9. Conversion

9.1. For D to be liable for conversion, P must show (1) D intentionally exercised dominion or control over P’s chattel; (2) the dominion or control seriously interfered; and (3) D's dominion was so serious that D must pay the full value of the chattel to P

9.1.1. (1) D's intent is only that he purposefully did his actions. D does not have to intend to seriously interfere, however, D's beliefs, motives and good faith may be relevant in determining the seriousness of D's interference

9.1.2. (2) Factors to determine the seriousness of the interference : the extent and duration of D’s exercise of dominion with the control; D’s intent to interfere with the owner’s control; D’s good faith; the extent and duration of the resulting interference with P’s right to control; the harm done to the chattel; the inconvenience and expense caused to P.

9.1.3. (3) D must pay P damages in the full market value of the chattel at the time of the conversion plus interest OR if P retains the chattel D must pay damages in the value of harm. Damages received are P’s choice.

9.1.4. It is coversion which is so serious, aggravated, or of such magnitude as to justify forcing D to pay the full value of the chattel to P.

9.1.5. Conversion can occur when D: - Acquires possession - Moves the chattel - Makes an unauthorised transfer, delivery, or disposal - Withholds possession - Destroys or materially alters the chattel - Merely uses the chattel

10. Respondeat Superior

10.1. Employer is responsible for employee's tortious actions when the employee is acting within the scope of the employment