Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

BATTERY: What is the intended consequence of battery?

Harmful/offensive contact



RULE: In order to make a Prima Facie Case for assault, P must show that D intentionally caused an IMMINENT APPREHENSION of a RULE: In order to make a Prima Facie case for HARMFUL/OFFENSIVE CONTACT with the Battery, the P must show that D INTENTIONALLY caused a HARMFUL/OFFENSIVE CONTACT with the person of another.

To make a prima facie case for defamation, the plaintiff must show that the defendant make a defamatory statement of concerning the plaintiff which was published to a third party and that plaintiff suffered special damages. Defamatory statement Of or concerning plaintiff person of P ELEMENTS: Published 3 ELEMENTS OF BATTERY: 1. Intent Special damages a. D has intent for BATTERY or 1. Intent Damages were presumed for libel and slander per se b. D intends to make P think a BATTERY IS 2. Harmful/Offensive contact DEFENSES IMMINENT. 3. With plaintiffs person 2. Imminent Conditional Priveleges Ps person includes anything so connected to the body a. Ds future plan and hypothetical threats Absolute Privileges has to be customarily regarded as part of the others are NOT imminent. Constitutional priveleges person. 3. Apprehension IS THE STATEMENT DEFAMATORY? a. Ps apprehension must be reasonable OR OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING INTENT OF What specific facts (if any) are impliedly or expressly asserted? D must know of Ps hypersensitivity. BATTERY: Are the express or implied facts provably false? 4. Harmful/offensive contact 1. if the defs contact was unlawful a. It is harmful/offensive if a reasonable Not provably false: hyperbole, general insults, figurative language, parody, jokes opinions that are
2. if the defs contact has consent to the contact. FALSE IMPRISONMENT: person would think so. 5. Person of another

False Imprisonment- conduct by actor which is INTENDED CONSEQUENCE: intended to, and does in fact, confine another within 1. To cause harmful/offensive contact boundaries fixed by the actor were, in addition, the 2. Apprehension of harmful/offensive contact victim is either conscious of confinement or is harmed RANDOM ASSAULT RULES: by it 1. Actual physical force is not required; implicit (false Another way to look at the Intended Consequence: assertion of lawful authority to confine) or explicit TRESPASS TO LAND: threats of physical force are enough One is subject to liability to another for trespass if 2. McCann v. Wal-Mart- P and children told they cant he intentionally: leave store b/c employees thought children were 1. Enters the land in the possession of another, ones who had been shoplifting week before; false or causes a thing or a third person to do so, imprisonment or 3. Exception- shopkeepers privilege- with reasonable 2. Remains on the land, or basis to believe that someone has shoplifted from 3. Fails to remove from the land a thing which store, owner may stop them until reasonable he is under a duty to remove (R.2d 158) investigation into incident has occurred INTENT is satisfied if D voluntarily enters anothers NECESSITY: land. the privelege of necessity: REMEMBER only the person in possession of the Private necessity: land can bring a lawful claim for trespass. In an emergency threatening ones person or property, one is preveleged to tresoass and even damage the others property if reasonable necessary But the person evoking the privelege must pay for any actual damage caused by the act. PUBLIC NECESSITY: In an emergency threatening the person or property of asubstantial number of peple, one is privileged to trespass and even damage the others property is reasonably necessary. And the person evoking the privelege DOES NOT have to pay for any actual damage. BOTH PRIVELEGES: These are privlegges so: If the owner interferes the owner is liable for harm he causes and The person invoking the provelege can defend herself and property from the owner BUT WAIT: You cant evoke the privlege if you caused the emergency. IIED: 1. 3 elements TRESPASS TO CHATTELS AND CONVERSION: Intention interference with Ps possession of personal property so significant that D should pay the full value of the property. SIMILARITIES: Intent to exercise dominion or control of plaintiffs possession of personal property. DIFFERENCES: 1. DAMAGES: TTC: Get stuff back, damages, damage to property, rental value for time. CONV: Get full value of the property + consequential damages. 2. INTERFERENCE: TTC: Must be some interference more than a few minutes, plaintiff must suffer CONV: There must be significant interference regardless of Ps harm. CONSENT:

clearly subjective. Provably false: statements and opinions that imply an assertion of objective fact. Would claiming ISSUES TWO DIFFERENT those facts to be true arouse outrage, scorn
1. PUBLICATION: did D publish the statement? o D is liable if D intentionally or negligently communicates the statement to a 3rd party capable of understanding it. Republishing: D is liable for re-publishing a defamatory statement regardless of whether D knew it as false o Passive publishers: Place the statement where others likelye to view it. Unreasonably leave statement written by another on Ds building or chattels. 2. FAULT: Did D know the statement was false? o Authors and publishers strictly liable at common law o DISTRIBUTORS liable only if they knew or should have known it was false.

RULE: D is not liable for an intentional tort if P expressly or impliedly consented to the conduct. i. extreme and outrageous conduct (has to be really APPARENT CONSENT: Consent is effective if D over the top) reasonably believes that P consented (R.2d 892) ii. intentional or reckless infliction of emotional PRIVELEGE OR EMERGENCY: Consent will be distress IMPLIED BY LAW when: 1. P is unconscious or otherwise incapable of providing consent, 2. There is an emergency that puts P at risk of injury or death if D waits to obtain actual consent and 3. D reasonably believes P would consent if P were capable

iii. actual result to P of severe emotional harm 2. if first two elements are present, do not have to have objective symptomology to take the case to a jury to determine if there was severe emotional harm 3. the more outrageous the conduct, the less you have to prove in harm or damages

4. Brower v. Ackerley- Ps case of intentional infliction CONSENT INDUCED BY MISTAKE OR of emotional distress can go to jury b/c first two DECEPTION: elements are undisputed Consent is NOT EFFECTIVE if Ps consent was TRANSFERRED INTENT: induced by a substantial mistake concerning the TORT TO TORT: If D has the intent required for one nature of the invasion of his interests of the extent tort but causes a different one, the intent automatically of the harm to be expected from it AND D knew of transfers to the second tort. the mistake or induced it by misrepresentation. VICTIM TO VICTIM: If D has the intent required for a (R.2d 892b) tort against 1 victim, but inflicts the tort on another CONSENT TO AN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY: person, the intent automtcally xfers to the 2nd person. MAJORITY: Consent is not effective, can not be **REMEMBER TRANSFERRED INTENT applies to: raised as a defense. BATTERY, ASSAULT, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, MINORITY: Consent is usually effective, can TRESSPASS TO LAND. usually be raised as a defense unless statute BUT NOT TO: CONVERSION, IIED, SOMETIMES protects vulnerable class of persons and TTC. consenting person falls in that class of persons. DEFENSE OF PERSON AND PROPERTY: THE DEFENSE PRIVELEGES: 2 KEYS TO PROPORTIONALITY 1.Did D use deadly or non-deadly force a. Deadly force: force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. 2.Was D defending person or property A person may use only as much force as reasonably required to protect herself what if you use too much force o if a person uses more force than necessary (excessive means) or continues using force after the threat is controlled (excessive duration) that person can be held liable for the extent of harm caused by excessive force. What kind of threats warrant defensive acts? o Imminence: The privelege of self defense only applies to imminent threats. o Apparent danger: