1、Tort LawTort law is a body of law that deals with civil wrongs, except those that arise from contract problems. The purpose of tort law is to compensate an injured party through the award of damages for the injuries incurred during a tortious act. Categories There are three broad categories of torts
2、:1. Intentional torts:2. negligence3. strict liability1. Intentional torts: Intentional torts are ones where the defendant desires to bring about a particular result. Intentional torts include actions that the layperson often associates with criminal law but are also covered by tort law. The main in
3、tentional torts against persons are: a. battery.b. assault.c. false imprisonment.d. intentional infliction of emotional distress.The main intentional torts against property are:a. trespass to land.b. trespass to chattels.c. conversion2. Negligence: The defendant has not intended to bring about a cer
4、tain result, but has merely behaved carelessly. There are no individually-named torts in this category, merely the general concept of “negligence.“ (generic tort)3. Strict liability: The defendant is held liable even though he did not intend to bring about the undesirable result, and even though he
5、behaved with utmost carefulness. INTENTIONAL TORTSAssaultBatteryFalse imprisonmentIntentional infliction of emotional distressTrespass to landTrespass to chattels, and ConversionAssault and batteryAssault and battery are intentional torts, meaning that the defendant actually intends to put the plain
6、tiff in fear of an imminent battery, or intends to wrongfully touch the plaintiff. The wrongful touching need not inflict physical injury, and may be indirect. (contact through a thrown stone, spitting)Assault Assault occurs when the defendants acts intentionally cause the victims reasonable apprehe
7、nsion of immediate harmful or offensive contact. In other words, the defendant has committed the tort of assault if he has intentionally caused the plaintiff to think that she will be subjected to a harmful or offensive contact. The interest being protected is plaintiffs interest in freedom from app
8、rehension of the contact; thus the tort can exist even if the contact itself never occurs. Apprehension: The victim must perceive that harmful or offensive contact is about to happen to him.Imminent Harmful or Offensive Contact: For assault to be actionable the victims apprehension must be of immine
9、nt harmful or offensive contact. “Words alone“ rule: Ordinarily, words alone are not sufficient, by themselves, to give rise to an assault. Normally there must be some overt act a physical act or gesture by defendant before plaintiff can claim to have been assaulted.Castiglione v. Galpin, 325 So.2d
10、725 (1976)Plaintiffs, sewerage and water board employees, brought suit for damages resulting from an alleged assault in which defendant allegedly pointed a shotgun at them after being informed that his water would be turned off because of nonpayment of a water bill. The Civil District Court for the
11、Parish of Orleans rendered judgment in favor of each plaintiff in the sum of $750, and defendant appealed. Holding: The Court of Appeal held that where defendant threatened plaintiffs with bodily harm in the event they turned the water off and where defendant had a shotgun at the time, whether gun r
12、emained on defendants lap or was pointed at plaintiffs, plaintiffs were in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery, and thus defendant was liable for assault; that the award to each plaintiff in the sum of $750 was not excessive.Battery Battery occurs when the defendants acts intentionally ca
13、use harmful or offensive contact with the victims person. Accidental contact, by contrast, must be analyzed under negligence or strict liability. Harmful or Offensive Contact: Battery encompasses either harmful or offensive contact. Even trivial offensive contact can constitute a battery. An offensi
14、ve touching can constitute a battery even if it does not cause injury, and could not reasonably be expected to cause injury. Mohr v. Williams, 104 N.W. 12 (Minn. 1905). P consults D, an ear doctor, about her right ear. She consents to an operation on that ear, but does nothing about her left ear. Du
15、ring the operation, D discovers that the left ear (but not the right ear) needs surgery, and performs it.Held, the surgery on the left ear was an unauthorized, offensive contact, and constituted battery even though it was not in fact harmful to Ps health. Reasonableness standard for “offensive“ cont
16、act: In determining whether a particular contact is “offensive,“ the standard is not whether the particular plaintiff was offended, but whether “an ordinary person not unduly sensitive as to his dignity“ would have been offended. Extends to personal effects: A battery may be committed not only by a
17、contact with the plaintiffs body but also by a contact with her clothing, an object she is holding, or anything else that is so closely identified with her body that contact with it is as offensive as contact with the body would be.Unforeseen consequences: Once it is established that the defendant i
18、ntended to commit a harmful or offensive touching and such a contact occurs, the defendant is liable for any consequences which ensue, even though he did not intend them, and in fact could not reasonably have foreseen them. Damages: If the plaintiff can establish that the intentional harmful or offe
19、nsive contact occurred, she may recover nominal damages even if she suffered no physical injury. This might be the case, for instance, where the contact is “offensive“ but not “harmful.“ Mental disturbance: She may also recover compensation for any pain, suffering, embarrassment, or other mental eff
20、ect, even in the absence of physical harm. Punitive damages: If the defendants conduct was particularly outrageous, the court may award punitive damages. Cole v. Turner (1704)522 U.S. 1056 118 S. Ct. 711 139 L. Ed. 2d 652 1998 U.S.No facts are given.The lightest angry touch constitutes battery. A ge
21、ntle touch made in close quarters with no ill intention is not a battery. A forceful or reckless touch, in close quarters is a battery.Any degree of touching coupled with angry mindset qualifies as battery.Talmage v. Smith, 101 Mich. 370, 59 N.W. 656 (Mich. 1894).Facts. Defendant threw a stick towar
22、d one member of a group of several boys to get them to leave his property. The stick missed the first boy and struck Plaintiff in the eye. Plaintiff sued and recovered on a jury verdict. The jury was instructed that Defendant could be liable if he threw the stick with the intent to hit the first boy
23、 or Plaintiff and did so with force that was unreasonable under the circumstances.Issue. Was the jury properly instructed that Defendant could be liable if he intended to hit either boy and used unreasonable force?Held. Yes. The judgment was affirmed, with costs.When a Defendant intends to inflict h
24、armful or offensive contact upon one party but instead inflicts such contact upon another, he is liable for the resulting injury.Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc.Facts: The plaintiff was approached while standing with a plate. One of the defendants employees snatched the plate out of his hand an
25、d made a racist remark. The plaintiff was not touched and didnt suffer physical injury, but was hurt emotionally.The jury in the trial found for the plaintiff and awarded damages. The trial court set aside the verdict and found for the defendants. The Court of Civil Appeals upheld the ruling, and th
26、e plaintiff appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.Issue: Can a plaintiff have a cause for battery if he or she was neither touched nor in apprehension of physical injury?Rule: The basis of an action for battery is the “unpermitted and intentional invasion of the plaintiffs person and not the actual ha
27、rm done to the plaintiffs body”.Analysis: The rule is clear in saying that “it is not necessary to touch the plaintiffs body or even his clothing; knocking or snatching anything from the plaintiffs body or touching anything connected with his person, when done in an offensive manner, is sufficient.”
28、The court says that “personal indignity” is the essence of battery, so it doesnt matter whether or not there was physical contact or injury. Conclusion: The court held that snatching the plate away from the plaintiff constituted battery and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for mental suffe
29、ring, “even in the absence of any physical injury”. The court reversed the judgments of the lower courts and awarded damages to the plaintiff. He was allowed to recover $400 in compensatory damages for his “humiliation and indignity“ even though he suffered no physical injury. He also recovered $500
30、 in punitive damages.False Imprisonment False imprisonment is a restraint of a person in a bounded area without justification or consent. In false imprisonment, the defendant unlawfully acts to intentionally cause confinement or restraint of the victim within a bounded area. Bounded Area: The victim
31、 must be confined within an area bounded in all directions. The bounded area can be, however, a large area, even an entire city.The plaintiff must be confined within definite physical boundaries. Blocking of the plaintiffs path is not enough: it is not enough that the path the plaintiff wishes to tr
32、avel is obstructed by the defendant, or that the plaintiff is prevented from entering a particular place. Awareness of Confinement: False imprisonment requires that the victim be conscious of the confinement at the time of imprisonment. The Restatement 42 modifies this requirement and would find lia
33、bility for false imprisonment, even when the victim is not aware of the confinement, if the victim is harmed by the confinement. Contrary to the Restatement, some authorities hold that a child can be subject to false imprisonment even if the child was neither aware of the confinement nor harmed. Big
34、 Town Nursing Home, Inc. v. Newman, 461 S.W.2d 195 (1970)Facts: Newman was admitted to the defendants nursing home. Newman decided he wanted to leave and made several attempts to do so. He was forcibly restrained by the defendants. There was no court order for him to be restrained.Issue: Did the nur
35、sing home falsely imprison Newman? If so, is the nursing home liable for punitive damages?Held: Yes. The jurys verdict was upheld, except the award was found excessive. Rule: False imprisonment occurs when one person directly restrains another persons physical freedom without legal justification. Pu
36、nitive damages can be awarded if the defendant intentionally violates the rights of the plaintiff.Discussion. This is a rather straightforward false imprisonment case. Plaintiff was even able to identify a contractual provision specifically demonstrating the Defendants knowledge that it acted in dis
37、regard of his rights. The relative simplicity of the case allows the Court to set forth the precise elements of the tort of false imprisonment.Hardy v. LaBelles Distributing Co, 203 Mont. 263, 661 P.2d 35, 1983 Mont. Facts. An employee of Defendant informed Defendant that Plaintiff, a recently hired
38、 temporary employee at Defendants jewelry department, had stolen a watch. The store manager invited Plaintiff into his office, claiming she was being given a tour as a new employee. The manager closed the door behind him, and Plaintiff was ultimately questioned in the room for 20 to 45 minutes by th
39、e manager, at least one uniformed police officer, and others, during which time Plaintiff did not ask or attempt to leave and was not told she could not leave. The manager was eventually satisfied that Plaintiff had not committed the theft. Issue. Was the jury wrong to find that Plaintiff had not be
40、en restrained against her will?Held. No. The jurys verdict was upheld. The Court found that Plaintiff was not unlawfully restrained against her will because she would have entered the office voluntarily, never asked or attempted to leave, and was never told she could not leave. Intentional Inflictio
41、n of Emotional Distress Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) exists when the defendant, by extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally or recklessly causes the victim severe emotional or mental distress, even in the absence of physical harm . Elements: Defendant acted intentionally
42、or recklessly; Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous; Defendants act is the cause of the distress; and Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendants conduct. Intent: There are three possible types of culpability by Defendant: (1) Defendant desires to cause Plaintiff e
43、motional distress; (2) Defendant knows with substantial certainty that P will suffer emotional distress; and (3) Defendant recklessly disregards the high probability that emotional distress will occur.“Transferred intent“: The doctrine of “transferred intent“ is not generally applicable in cases of
44、intentional infliction of mental distress. That is, if the defendant attempts to cause emotional distress to X, or to commit some other tort upon him, and plaintiff suffers emotional distress (e.g., because he witnesses the defendants attempt and becomes frightened), P will not usually be able to re
45、cover. Immediate family present: The main exception is that the transferred intent doctrine is applied if: (1) Defendant directs his conduct to a member of Plaintiffs immediate family; (2) Plaintiff is present; and (3) Plaintiffs presence is known to Defendant.“Extreme and outrageous“: Plaintiff mus
46、t show that Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous, i.e., Defendants conduct has to be “beyond all possible bounds of decency.“ Actual severe distress: Plaintiff must suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff must show at least that her distress was severe enough that she sought medical aid
47、. Most cases do not require Plaintiff to show that the distress resulted in bodily harm. Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida, 100 So.2d 396 (1958)Facts: Plaintiff, a customer in Defendants store, inquired as to the price of a certain item. The employee responded that “if you want to know the price
48、, youll have to find out the best way you can” because “you stink to me”. Plaintiff brought suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and claimed the insulting characterization of her bodily scent led to a heart attack and other injuries. The trial court dismissed the case for failure t
49、o state a cause of action. The plaintiff appealed.Issue. Was the trial court correct to find that the Plaintiffs allegations were insufficient to state an independent cause of action? Held. Yes. The judgment was affirmed. Rule: An action for intentional infliction of mental distress may lie if the distress is severe, or if an insult is suffered by a patron/customer of a common carrier such as an employee of a hote
