Torts 2 2

Start Studying!

Terms

undefined, object

copy deck

Paul v Holbrook: P alleges D harassed while working. Massage shoulders 2 occasions. P reported. A, B, IIED. OC
D response to OB: Casual touching, failed to produce evidence of intent, prior conversations, just kidding, friendly contact
P arguments OB: D must have K (Title 7), custom, if CN prove P test fall back on K test. Reasonable person must have known that OC was substantially likely to result
Johnson v Pankratz AZ 2000: P alleges sexual abuse by fr. Subst amt of abuse & threats = nightmares & UTIs B req punis. B DN req P to prove damages & difficulty to quanity not justificaction for refusing
Fisher v Carrousel Motor Hotel TX 1967: Employee snatched D's plate away. Embarasshed = Offensive Battery. B inc clothing objects closely identified w/body. Actual physical contact is not req. Mental distress is recoverable
Piccard v Barry Pontiac-Buick: A & B.
Assault definition: A is a physical act of a threatening nature/an offer of corporal injury which puts an individual in reasonable fear of imminent BH.
What makes A compensable: Apprehension of injury
What damages for A?: N, C, Punis, Damages for P's mental disturbanc inc fright, humiliation, physical injury reasonable person standard
Is intent to injure necessary for Battery?: No. B act that was intended to cause & in fact did cause an offensive contact w/or unconsented touching of or trauma upon the body of another t/b resulting in the consummation of A. Intent to injure unec where D willfully sets in motion a force that causes injury.
Does B req proof of contact: Yes
Damages for sexual A & B: Dignitory torts A, FI, IIED Recovery not lmtd to nom, E/i IIED not proved AZ allows damages for mental distress form a physical invasion of a person's security. Trad B gen damages can be recovered e/t no physical injury
Does a conditional threat suffice for an assault?: Usually not. If P can avoid harm. HW MB an A if D has no legal privilege to impose the condition, weapon b/c reasonable to fear harm by mere presence of a weapon
Cullison v Medley IN 1991: P appraoched D's minor daughter D & fam threatened P shaking gun in holster. P claims A & ED. Damages for ED allowed. A - touching of the mind if not the body. A MB est based upon the utterance of a conditional threat when the D has no legal privlige to impose condition.
Conditional Threat that = A: Words + threatening imminent conduct. I want you to leave trailer in 1 min if u DN I'll shoot - unprivileged threat actionable e/t it is form of a conditional threat/excessive force
Castiglione v Galpin: P went to D to inform him water WB turned off for nonpmt D got a gun. Where a D wields a gun in a threatening manner an A may occur. Totality of the circumstances. Words alone MN be suff to constitute an A h/w if have present ability to carry out then threats may suffice for A
Factors taken into acct when determining if there has been an assault: Body la, placement & movement, gender/body size. ? whether a reasonable person WH felt imminent apprehension.
Picard v Barry RI 1995: Female P sued for A & B when M D of bigger size approached & grabbed for camera. No CF of physical injury to P & t/f no malice.
Can you recover damages for mental truama & distress from A: Yes, Cullison v Medley A is r to be free from B purely psychological harm. May also recover for physical manifestations of ED
FI: 1. Act by D
2. Intent, p/k/ti/insane/children
3. CF
4. Detention/Confinement by
physical force, boundaries, expressed/implied imminent threat of force MB words alone,
5. CF (Comp Damages)
6. Harm (No harm req for nom/punis)
Lmtd v Wilson-Robinson Ar 1994: Shopkeeper's privilege P returned to the store when ased by D's employee after alarm went off. No FI b/c no force/threat of force used by D. Future threat of harm DN = FI, implied threat of arrest DN = confinement. Submission MB responsive to a threat to apply physical force to the other's person immediately
RS FI: 1. act
2. intent to confine wi/boudnaries fixed by actor
3. CF
4. confinement/harm
Soares v Ann Hpe: If P says FI by police than 2 poss suits FI & MP where threat unsuccessful. Crim trial wanted proof of shoplifting find price.
Elements of MP: 1. act getting P prosecuted
2. intent to initiate case wo/Probable cause
3. CF
4. unsuccessful crim/civil pros
5. nom, comp, punis,
6. clear proof required in MP malice = primary motive of ill/will hostility
T to Land: 1. Act by D
2. Intent P/K DN need to K whose land
3. CF
4. interference w/P's poss r in real estate enters land, remains on land, DN remove something have duty to remove
5. CF of comp damages phsyical harm to prop/harm to owners
6. Damages
Damages for trespass to land: nom, comp, punis can be allowed wo/comp Jacques v Steenberg
Jacques v Steenberg WI 97: D moved mobile home over P's land after permission to do so was repeatedly denied. Nom & punis but no comp b/c no actual damages. Actual harm occurs in every T b/c disrespect for law
Restatement damages: allows nominal & punitive in trespass to land where actor K wo/consent punis if complete disregard for possessor's r, not recoverable in mistaken trespass to L b/c negates malice
Doucherty v Stepp NC 1835: CL intent element satisfied by entry upon the land of antoehr. T = legal means to est lawful possession/maintain boundaries t/f SL for T to L
Baker v Shymkiv Ohio 83: Trench neighbors came over LO had heart attack. T responsible for WD b/c liable for all results of IT. DN req forseeable to get $ when trespassing
Cullision v Medley 2 IN 91: Impact rule overruled. When 1 intentionally invades the premises of another in such a way as to provoke a reasonably forseeable emotional disturbance/trauma of the rightful occupier of the premises the occupier may in addition to recovering $ for damages to realty recover $ for emotional injury
Trespass to Chattels: CF of interference of poss rights in personal property
1. D falls short of complete deprivation of P's poss rights
2. Must show actual damage to the prop to obtain judgment
3. Measure of damages = actual diminution of prop's value
Defenses to Intentional Torts: 1. Consent
2. Self Defense
3. Defense of Others
4. Defense of Property
Defense of Property: 1. Actual trespass by P.
2. Demand by D for P to leave land not req when P enters land w/force usually no time to make the request demand
3. P refuses to leave
4. Reasonable force but not death/sbh
Hannabalson v Session IA 1902: P reached over fence & shook D's ladder D struck arm lightly & tolder her to stay on own side held for D
Newcom v Russel KY 1909: P shot D in leg ot make D stop tearing down fence to allow cattle to cross over P's land Held for P never OK to use deadly weapon to remove T from land esp on outer boundaries
Vancherie v Siperly MD 1966: Sailor in restaurant Diff b/w ages, phsyical ability Jury should take provocative acts & words of P into acct for mitigation of punis in defense of prop switch to SD if possessible when SBH/D
Is there a retreat clause in IA?: No duty to retreat W of Miss R.
Silas v Bowen SC 1967: D shot P in ft after P grabbed D by shoulder D claimed fear SBH b/c P was much larger than D. Held for D. Prop owner's reasonable belief that he/fam were in danger of BI belief must be R. mere words Acted in reasonable apprehension of SBH & to repel what he reasonably feared would be a serious/dangerous assault by a person of overpowering size
Do mere words justify the use of a deadly weapon in SD: No words must be accompanied by a threat of violence, rare, age, size, strength can play a role. Words + conduct of putting hand on gun in pocket Silas
Woodard v Turniseed: P minor A & B committed w/a broom against D dairy farmer. D hit P ex w/broom after P DN leave prop b/c P DN have a ride. Prop O can use force reasonably perceived as nec to remove BN deadly/sbh where not comparable

Start Studying!

Deck Info

Number of cards 41