Intentional torts United States tort law

1 intentional torts

1.1 elements

1.1.1 intent

1.1.1.1 transferred intent


1.1.2 act
1.1.3 result
1.1.4 causation


1.2 causes of action

1.2.1 battery
1.2.2 assault
1.2.3 false imprisonment
1.2.4 intentional infliction of emotional distress
1.2.5 trespass land
1.2.6 trespass chattel
1.2.7 conversion
1.2.8 defamation


1.3 affirmative defenses

1.3.1 consent
1.3.2 self-defense
1.3.3 defense of property
1.3.4 necessity

1.3.4.1 private necessity
1.3.4.2 public necessity

intentional torts

intentional torts involve situations in defendant desires or knows substantial certainty act cause plaintiff damage. include battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress ( iied ), trespass land, trespass chattels, conversion, invasion of privacy, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, fraud, inducing breach of contract, intentional interference business relations, , defamation of character (libel/slander).

elements

the elements of intentional torts follow same pattern: intent, act, result, , causation.

intent

this element typically requires defendant desire or know substantial certainty occur result of act. therefore, term intent, purposes of section, includes either desire or knowledge substantial certainty.

for example in battery, dave shoots gun crowd of people because trying hit bullet. element satisfied, david had actual desire procure harm required tort. alternatively, dave shoots gun crowd of people reason , genuinely hopes no 1 gets hit knows virtually inevitable hit. element still satisfied, david had knowledge substantial certainty harm result.

in contrast, if can said defendant s state of mind should have known better, not liable intentional tort. situation might occur if, opposed examples above, dave shoots gun in remote part of desert without looking fun, not wanting hit anyone, bullet hit someone. dave did not have desire or knowledge substantial certainty hit in situation. may, however, liable other tort, namely negligence.

transferred intent

transferred intent legal principle intent can transferred 1 victim or tort another. [1] in tort law, there 5 areas in transferred intent applicable: battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass land, , trespass chattels. generally, intent cause 1 of these 5 torts results in completion of of 5 tortious acts considered intentional act, if actual target of tort 1 other intended target of original tort.

act

the element of act varies whatever tort in question requires voluntariness. example, if dave has muscle spasm makes arm fling out side , hit paula, standing next him, case paula attempts bring against dave battery fail lack of requisite act (which discussed in section on battery, below). act not voluntary.

result

this element typically refers damage, although damage not required prevail on intentional torts, such trespass land.

causation

this element refers actual cause , proximate cause. treated in own section.

causes of action
battery

a person commits battery when acts either intending cause harmful or offensive contact or intending cause imminent apprehension of such contact , when such contact results. therefore, there variety of ways in person can commit battery, illustrated following examples of defendant dave , plaintiff paula.

dave acts intending cause harmful contact paula, , harmful contact result.
dave acts intending cause harmful contact paula, offensive contact results.
dave acts intending cause offensive contact paula, , offensive contact result.
dave acts intending cause offensive contact paula, harmful contact results.
dave acts intending cause paula imminently apprehensive of harmful or offensive contact, harmful contact results.
dave acts intending cause paula imminently apprehensive of harmful or offensive contact, offensive contact results.

apprehension broader term fear. if defendant intends cause plaintiff fear harmful contact, example, therefore suffice apprehension, there other ways achieve apprehension well.

assault

assault notably similar battery. indeed, elements of intent , act identical. difference result. person commits assault when acts either intending cause harmful or offensive contact or intending cause imminent apprehension of such contact , when such imminent apprehension results. therefore, there variety of ways in person can commit assault.

false imprisonment

a person commits false imprisonment when acts intending confine , when confinement results confinee either aware of or damaged by.

confinement must typically within boundaries defendant establishes. example, person not confined when refused entry building, because free leave. in addition, person not confined unless leave of ordinary person in same situation overborne. example, dave calls paula room 1 door. dave closes door , stands in front of it. tells paula if wants leave, open door , out of way threatens blink twice if so. ordinary person s leave not overborne dave s threat blink twice.

no damage required in false imprisonment, hence requirement of result of awareness or damage. example, dave calls paula room 1 door. dave closes door , stands in front of it. tells paula if wants leave, take out gun , shoot her. (note overcome of ordinary person leave.) hour later, dave changes mind , leaves premises. paula subsequently leaves , not physically injured @ all. awareness of confinement sufficient satisfy element of result in false imprisonment.

alternatively, paula narcoleptic. falls deep sleep while feeding chickens in barn on dave s farm in remote area. not wanting move her, dave locks in barn outside when needs go town, trying protect knowing won t able leave (or call help) if wakes up. while dave away, chickens severely scratch paula s arms, not wake up. dave returns, unlocks barn, , wakes paula tend wounds. though unaware of confinement, damaged , have claim of false imprisonment against dave.

intentional infliction of emotional distress

a person liable intentional infliction of emotional distress (iied) when intentionally or recklessly engages in extreme , outrageous conduct highly cause severe emotional distress.

this notable exception general rule given above intentional torts desire or knowledge substantial certainty do. iied includes recklessness. still distinguishes negligent infliction of emotional distress, though.

extreme , outrageous conduct refers act. severe emotional distress refers result. intentional tort no damage ordinarily required. however, jurisdictions require accompaniment of physical effects. in other words, emotional distress not deemed exist in jurisdictions unless there physical manifestations, such vomiting or fainting.

trespass land

a person commits trespass land when wrongfully , intentionally enters, or causes thing or third person enter, land owned or occupied another.

trespass chattel

a person commits trespass chattel when acts either intending dispossess rightful possessor of chattel or intending use or intermeddle chattel of , when dispossession of chattel substantial time results, or damage chattel results, or physical injury rightful possessor results.

conversion

a person commits conversion when acts intending exercise dominion , control , when interference rightful possessor s control results serious requires actor pay full value of chattel rightful possessor. exercise of dominion , control refers act. serious interference refers result. seriousness determined following factors:

the nature of act , how long lasted;
the nature of interference , how long lasted;
the inconvenience , expense incurred rightful possessor;
the actor s faith (whether trying someone, example);
when applicable, mistake actor (he took book looked own else s, example); and
when applicable, damage chattel.

the remedy cause of action not requires defendant pay plaintiff full value of chattel considered forced sale. plaintiff must tender defendant chattel. therefore, plaintiff may not elect pursue cause of action instead trespass chattel, namely when wants keep chattel despite potential damage.

defamation



barrett v. rosenthal
curtis publishing co. v. butts
dun & bradstreet, inc. v. greenmoss builders, inc.
gertz v. robert welch, inc.
hustler magazine v. falwell
lunney v. prodigy services co.
mcdonald v. smith
milkovich v. lorain journal co.
near v. minnesota
new york times co. v. sullivan
red lion broadcasting co. v. federal communications commission
reynolds v. pegler
time, inc. v. firestone
westmoreland v. cbs
john peter zenger

affirmative defenses

the following affirmative defenses intentional torts.

consent

consent can defense intentional tort, although lack of consent incorporated definition of intentional tort, such trespass land. however, lack of consent not essential element establish prima facie case in such situations. therefore, treated affirmative defense.

self-defense

self-defense typically defense battery. similar self-defense defense of others.

defense of property

this typically defense trespass land or trespass chattels, can refer realty or personalty.

necessity

necessity typically defense trespass land. there 2 kinds of necessity, private , public.

private necessity

this partial privilege. party has privilege still liable damage caused. defense therefore more important when there concomitant issue of whether opposing party has valid privilege of defense of property.

the following example derived actual vermont case 1908. paula sailing on lake when violent storm breaks out. navigates nearest dock , ties vessel, not damaging dock @ all. dock belongs dave. dave attempts exercise privilege of defense of property, paula ordinarily committing trespass land in situation, , unties vessel. paula therefore drifts away shore. boat damaged, , suffers personal injuries, both result of storm.

if paula had damaged dave s dock, liable it, though has valid privilege of private necessity. more importantly, dave liable paula damage boat , personal injuries. because of private necessity, paula not considered trespasser. so, dave did not in fact have valid privilege of defense of property.

ordinarily, private necessity valid, party attempting exercise must not have created emergency. example, if paula intentionally punctures fuel tank can race on dave s dock , tie up, not have valid privilege of private necessity. such, trespasser, , dave have valid privilege of defense of property.

public necessity

this complete privilege. party has privilege, typically public official or governmental entity, not liable damage caused. famous case on privilege involved john w. geary, first mayor of san francisco, made decision during major fire burn down several private residences establish fire break.