Response to Practice Exam: Charlie and SSA Charlies claim against SSA will begin with the intentional

torts. First, a claim for assault will not likely succeed because his claim will meet a barrier on the element of reasonable apprehension. Charlie must be apprehensive of an imminent harmful or offensive touching. This element is lacking. The only threat was one towards his reputation on campus. Similarly, a claim for battery will not be successful because there element of harmful or offensive touching/contact was missing in relation to SSAs actions towards Charlie. However, Charlie will find most success on Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. IIED requires that defendant 1) intentionally knew or substantially certain or recklessly intended or should have known that its act would cause severe emotional distress, 2) extreme and outrageous/intolerable conduct, 3) severe distress, and 4) causal link between the distress and act. An analysis of Cs IIED claim against SSA on the face shows, arguably SSA knew that this potent concoction of vodka, beer, toothpaste (what?), clam juice (weird!), etc would create severe emotional distress. Even if, SSA can somehow claim that it did not intentionally know or that it was not substantially certain its act would cause severe ED, Charlie can counter that SSA recklessly intended or should have known that its act would cause severe emotional distress. Second, because C was underage IIED should apply because forcing C to drink the concoction fits the definition of intolerable or outrageous conduct. Third, the fact that Cs head began swimming and that he felt nauseous is evidence that he suffered severe distress. Lastly, while we may need to know more information as to whether or not his severe emotional distress was directly a cause of drinking the concoction, arguably Hell Week consisted of other acts that may be the cause of Cs distress, but the fact that after drinking the concoction C felt poorly indicates a causal connection. SSA can respond with an affirmative defense that Charlie consented to the acts when he chose to pledge for the fraternity. C can point to the majority rule in Geysel. The majority rule held that consent is no defense to an action when parties engage in mutual combat. Arguably, Cs claim is even stronger because he consented to the act in a manner that was not mutual. SSA questioned his masculinity and threatened to publicize his cowardice around campus. As a sophomore in college and a person who seems to have decided to engage in college social life, SSAs threat arguably coerced or placed C in a position where he was not on a mutual standing like the prize fighters in Geysel. Furthermore, C can contest that SSAs actions were outside the scope of his consent. C would argue that he consented to endure Hell Week but that his scope of consent cannot be extended to breaking the states drinking laws. Lastly, Cs consent may have ended because the duration of Hell Week is undefined. Is Week defined as business week or the biblical definition where Sunday is no longer part of the week? In both instances, by dawn of Sunday, C would no longer have consented to any of SSAs requirements. Cs last point can be that he took away his consent when he stated that he did not want to get into a barrel. Barrel: False Imprisonment? The elements of FI are 1) unlawful, 2) restraint, 3) against Ps will, 4) intent.