Torts Outline

Tort: noncontractual civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy
Form of general responsibility imposed as a condition of being a
member of society
Common law
o Not constant changes and develops
o Can be superseded by legislation
Cause
Fault
Appropriate measure of damages
Takes many recommendations from ALI
o NOT binding
Main question of tort law: Who is in the best position to prevent
future accidents?
Intent: purpose to bring about contact and substantial certainty that
contact will follow
Can be transferred within tort of batter, trespass to land,
trespass to chattels, assault
Cannot be transferred to IIED
Even if intent is not intentional, can still be liable
Restatement:
Battery: Harmful contact
An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if:
o A) He acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive
contact with the person of the other or a third person, or
an imminent apprehension of such a contact and
o B) A harmful contact with the person of the other directly
or indirectly results
Battery: Offensive Contact
1. An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
o A) He acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive
contact with the person of the other or a third person, or
an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
o B) An offensive contact with the person of the other
directly or indirectly results
2. An act which is not done with the intention stated in
Subsection (1, a) does not make the actor liable to the other for a
mere offensive contact with the others person although the act
involves an unreasonable risk of inflicting it and, therefore, would
be negligent or reckless if the risk threatened bodily harm.

Common Law Holdings:

Mental State: Evan an insane person can be held liable as long
as intent is fulfilled/no special consideration for insane people
o Dont want to be force to prove insanity frequently
o McGuire v. Almy
Mistake of Fact: liable for damages of mistake, notwithstanding
acting in good faith
o Ranson v. Kitner (dog/wolf case)
o Trespass to chattels in this case, but established good faith
still yields liability
Substantial Certainty/Children: Intent established if there is
substantial certainty
o Substantial certainty: performing an action with sufficient
knowledge that such an action will cause harm
o Only significance in child is determining what knowledge a
typical child that age would have
o 2 ways of establishing intent:
Doing something for purpose of making contact
Degree of certainty of resulting contact
o Garret v. Dailey
Nonforeseeable injuries
o Keep your hands to yourself unconsented touching is a
battery, even if no damage
o Intention of contact is important, not intention of harm
o Spivey v. Battaglia friendly hug case
Ruled incorrectly, hug was contact, thus battery
o However circumstances must be considered
Wallace v. Rosen always some background
interpersonal contact in world that we live in
Transferred intent: harmful contact intended for one party
reaches third party instead
o Restatement clearly accounts for this
o 5 torts that can transfer amongst each other
Trespass to writ: battery, assault, false imprisonment,
trespass to land, trespass to chattels
o Reasonable force to defend/protect property, but not
excessive force
Talmage v. Smith
Personal dignity
o Offensively touching something that is in close proximity to
ones person can be considered a battery
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel
o Personal indignity is the harm

Assault: occurs when defendant intentionally acts; requireds imminent

contact not just future contact
1. An actor is subject to liability to another for assault if:
o a) He acts intending to cause harmful or offensive contact
of the other or a third person, or an imminent
apprehension of such contact, and
o b) The other is thereby put in imminent apprehension
2. An action which is not done with the intention stated in
subsection (1,a) does not make the actor liable to the other for
an apprehension caused thereby although the act involves an
unreasonable risk of causing it and, therefore, would be
negligent or reckless if the risk threatened bodily harm
Common law:
Reasonable apprehension (Western Union Telegraph)
o Verbal threat followed by physically making a movement
Future threat not an assault
False imprisonment
1. An actor is subject to liability to another for false
imprisonment if
o a) He acts intending to confine the other or a third person
within boundaries fixed by the actor, and
o b) his act directly or indirectly results in such a
confinement of the other, and
o c) the other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed
by it
What constitutes confinement
o Confinement within boundaries fixed by the actor must be
complete
o Confinement is complete although there is a reasonable
means of escape, unless the other knows of it
o Actor does not become liable for false imprisonment by
intentionally preventing another from going in a particular
direction in which he has a right or privilege to go
Common law:
Direct restraint/force against will is false imprisonment (Big Town
Nursing Home)
Must be conscious at time of confinement (Parvi)
Must be a safe exit that plaintiff is aware of (Parvi)
Must be against your will (Hardy stealing accusation
voluntarily stayed)
Arrest is confinement (Enright v. Groves)
Must be imminent no future threats

Escape is unreasonable if it involves exposure of person, material

harm to clothing, or danger of substantial harm
No duty to assist 3rd parties

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

4 parts:
o 1. Outrageous conduct by defendant
o 2. Intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the
probability of causing, emotional distress
o 3. Actual suffering of sever or extreme emotional distress,
and
o 4. Actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress
by the defendants outrageous conduct
Common law:
Defendant who intentionally subjected another to mental distress
without intending to cause bodily harm would nevertheless be
laiable for resulting bodily harm if he should have foreseen that
the mental distress might cause such harm
Harris v. Jones possible outlier but shows subjectivity
Plaintiff will generally lose if actions are described as speech
rather than conduct (Snyder v. Phelps)
o 1st Amendment rights
If defendant commits wrongful act against plaintiff, then family
members, friends, lovers, etc. cannot recover if they learned
about it after the fact (Taylor v. Villalunga)
Substantial certainty in play