BATTERY: ASSAULT:

DEFAMATION:
What is the intended consequence of battery? RULE: In order to make a Prima Facie Case for To make a prima facie case for defamation, the plaintiff must show that the defendant make a
Harmful/offensive contact assault, P must show that D intentionally caused
defamatory statement of concerning the plaintiff which was published to a third party and that plaintiff
an IMMINENT APPREHENSION of a
RULE: In order to make a Prima Facie case for suffered special damages.
HARMFUL/OFFENSIVE CONTACT with the
Battery, the P must show that D INTENTIONALLY  Defamatory statement
caused a HARMFUL/OFFENSIVE CONTACT with the person of another.
person of P ELEMENTS:
 Of or concerning plaintiff
 “Published”
3 ELEMENTS OF BATTERY: 1. Intent  Special damages
a. D has intent for BATTERY or
1. Intent
b. D intends to make P think a BATTERY IS  Damages were presumed for libel and slander per se
2. Harmful/Offensive contact DEFENSES
IMMINENT.
3. With plaintiff’s person
2. Imminent  Conditional Priveleges
P’s person includes anything so connected to the body a. D’s future plan and hypothetical threats  Absolute Privileges
– has to be customarily regarded as part of the other’s are NOT imminent.  Constitutional priveleges
person. 3. Apprehension IS THE STATEMENT DEFAMATORY?
OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING INTENT OF a. P’s apprehension must be reasonable OR
D must know of P’s hypersensitivity. What specific facts (if any) are impliedly or expressly asserted?
BATTERY:
4. Harmful/offensive contact  Are the express or implied facts provably false?
1. if the def’s 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 def’s contact has consent to the contact. person would think so.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT: 5. Person of another clearly subjective.
False Imprisonment- conduct by actor which is INTENDED CONSEQUENCE:  Provably false: statements and opinions that imply an assertion of objective fact.
intended to, and does in fact, confine another within 1. To cause harmful/offensive contact Would
TWO claiming those
DIFFERENT ISSUES facts to be true arouse “outrage, scorn”
boundaries fixed by the actor were, in addition, the 1. PUBLICATION: did D publish the statement?
2. Apprehension of harmful/offensive contact
victim is either conscious of confinement or is harmed o D is liable if D intentionally or negligently communicates the statement to a 3rd party capable of understanding it.
by it RANDOM ASSAULT RULES:
 Republishing: D is liable for re-publishing a defamatory statement regardless of whether D knew it as false
1. Actual physical force is not required; implicit (false Another way to look at the Intended Consequence: o Passive publishers:
assertion of lawful authority to confine) or explicit TRESPASS TO LAND:  Place the statement where others likelye to view it.
threats of physical force are enough  Unreasonably leave statement written by another on D’s building or chattels.
One is subject to liability to another for trespass if 2. FAULT: Did D know the statement was false?
2. McCann v. Wal-Mart- P and children told they can’t he intentionally:
o Authors and publishers – strictly liable at common law
leave store b/c employees thought children were
1. Enters the land in the possession of another, o DISTRIBUTORS – liable only if they knew or should have known it was false.
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 another’s
NECESSITY: land.
the privelege of necessity:
Private necessity: REMEMBER only the person in possession of the
land can bring a lawful claim for trespass.
 In an emergency threatening one’s person or
property, one is preveleged to tresoass and even TRESPASS TO CHATTELS AND CONVERSION:
damage the other’s property if reasonable Intention interference with P’s possession of
necessary personal property so significant that D should pay
 But the person evoking the privelege must pay for the full value of the property.
any actual damage caused by the act.
PUBLIC NECESSITY: SIMILARITIES: Intent to exercise dominion or
 In an emergency threatening the person or control of plaintiff’s possession of personal
property of asubstantial number of peple, one is property.
privileged to trespass and even damage the others DIFFERENCES:
property is reasonably necessary.
1. DAMAGES:
 And the person evoking the privelege DOES NOT
TTC: Get stuff back, damages, damage to
have to pay for any actual damage.
property, rental value for time.
BOTH PRIVELEGES:
CONV: Get full value of the property +
These are privlegges so:
consequential damages.
 If the owner interferes the owner is liable for harm
2. INTERFERENCE:
he causes and
TTC: Must be some interference more than a
 The person invoking the provelege can defend
few minutes, plaintiff must suffer
herself and property from the owner CONV: There must be significant interference
BUT WAIT: You cant evoke the privlege if you caused
regardless of P’s harm.
the emergency.
CONSENT:
IIED:
RULE: D is not liable for an intentional tort if P
1. 3 elements 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:
iii. actual result to P of severe emotional harm 1. P is unconscious or otherwise incapable of
2. if first two elements are present, do not have to providing consent,
have objective symptomology to take the case to a 2. There is an emergency that puts P at risk of
jury to determine if there was severe emotional harm injury or death if D waits to obtain actual
consent and
3. the more outrageous the conduct, the less you
3. D reasonably believes P would consent if P
have to prove in harm or damages
were capable
4. Brower v. Ackerley- P’s case of intentional infliction
CONSENT INDUCED BY MISTAKE OR
of emotional distress can go to jury b/c first two
DECEPTION:
elements are undisputed
TRANSFERRED INTENT: Consent is NOT EFFECTIVE if P’s consent was
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,
TRESSPASS TO LAND. MINORITY: Consent is usually effective, can
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: