torts

• In order to prove negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused harm to the plaintiff.
• To establish a prima facie case of intentional tort, the plaintiff must prove: (1) An Act by Defendant, (2) Intent, (3) Causation.
• The act required in an intentional tort is a volitional movement by the defendant.
• Intent in an intentional tort can be either specific, with the goal in acting being to bring about specific consequences, or general, where the actor knows with substantial certainty that these consequences will result.
• Causation in an intentional tort is satisfied if the defendant’s conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the resulting harm.
• Transferred intent applies when the defendant intends to commit a tort against one person but instead, commits a different tort against that person, or commits the same tort as intended but against a different person.
• Transferred intent may be invoked only if both the tort intended and the tort that results are one of the following: Assault, Battery, False Imprisonment, Trespass to land or, Trespass to chattels.
• Everyone is capable of intent.
• Incapacity is not a good defense in an intentional tort.
• Assault is an attempted battery, where the elements of the prima facie case are: (1) An intentional act by defendant creating a reasonable apprehension in plaintiff, (2) Of immediate harmful or offensive contact to plaintiff’s person, (3) Intent and, (4) Causation.
• Distinguish Fear from Apprehension: Apprehension should not be confused with fear or intimidation.
• Reasonable apprehension in an assault case is when the plaintiff has knowledge of the defendant’s act and has a reasonable expectation that it will result in immediate harmful or offensive contact to plaintiff’s person.
• If the defendant has the apparent ability to commit a battery, this will be enough to cause a reasonable apprehension in an assault case.
• Proper amount of force is required in questions involving these defenses.
• A mistake is allowed as to whether an intrusion has occurred or whether a request to desist is required in defense of property.
• The conduct of the defendant was prompted by the commission or apparent commission of a tort by the plaintiff or was privileged by one of these defenses.
• Self-defense is generally not available to the initial aggressor.
• A mistake is not permissible as to whether the tort being defended against is actually being committed.
• Threatened injury must be more serious than the interference undertaken to avert it in necessity defense.
• Tort must be in progress or imminent for self-defense.
• Defense of Property (DP) is available when one may use reasonable force to prevent the commission of a tort against her real or personal property.
• Defense of Others (DO) is available when the actor reasonably believes that the other person could have used force to defend himself.
• Necessity is a defense to torts against property (trespass to land, trespass to chattel, conversion) in which the defendant damages the plaintiff’s property in an effort to avoid a greater danger.
• Public necessity is an absolute defense in which the defendant’s invasion of the plaintiff’s property must be reasonably necessary to protect the community or a large group of people.
• Self-defense may extend to third party injuries caused while the actor was defending herself.
• Reasonable belief is a requirement for all defenses.
• Already committed torts do not qualify as a defense.
• Requirements for necessity defense: D's interference with the plaintiff’s property must be reasonably necessary to avoid an immediate threatened injury.
• Reasonable force may be used in defense of property, however, one may not use force causing death or serious bodily harm unless the invasion of property also entails a serious threat of bodily harm.
• Reasonable force is required in self-defense.
• IIED is a fallback tort position and if another alternative in an exam question is a tort that will also allow plaintiff to recover, it should be chosen over IIED.
• Trespass to Land (TL) is a prima facie case with elements of physical invasion, intent, and causation.
• The more outrageous the conduct, the less proof of damages is required in intentional torts.
• IIED is the only intentional tort that requires damages.
• Trespass to Chattels (TC) is a prima facie case with elements of an act by defendant that interferes with plaintiff’s right of possession in a chattel, intent, causation, and damages.
• Conversion is a prima facie case with elements of an act by defendant that interferes with plaintiff’s right of possession in a chattel, intent, causation, and damages.
• A bystander closely related to a personal physically injured or killed by the defendant’s conduct may recover for emotional distress.
• Defendant knew elements 2) and 3).
• Plaintiff was present when the injury occurred.
• Actual damages (severe emotional distress) are not required in intentional torts.