How is Extreme Sensitivity treated?
Extreme sensitivity is ignored in determining whether a π has a cause of action
Does a ∆ need legal capacity to commit an intentional tort?
No, a ∆ does not need legal capacity to commit an intentional tort. Although legal capacity is required to consent to a intentional tort, thus waiving the right to sue, it is not a requisite to committing one. Thus, children, drunks, and persons with developmental capabilities are all capable of committing intentional torts even though they lack legal capacity to engage in other acts.
What element is ALWAYS required in order to prove an intentional tort?
The π must always prove that a ∆ had INTENT to commit an intentional tort. Intent an element of every intentional tort.
When does a ∆ have the INTENT necessary to commit an intentional tort?
When ∆ has a DESIRE, WANT, or WISH to produce produce the legally forbidden act. This requires that the ∆ commit a VOLUNTARY ACT with the desire, want, or wish to produce an intentional tort.
1. The ∆ must commit a harmful or OFFENSIVE contact,
2. The contact must be with the π's PERSON, and
3. ∆'s INTENT
Offensive=Unpermitted. Focus on ORDINARY sensitivity.
BATTERY—contact with π's PERSON?
Things connected/touching π. Examples—purses, brief cases, scarves, horses (if riding)
Harmful or Offensive contact need not occur at the same time as ∆'s voluntary act
∆ Need not commit battery with his/her own person. Extensions of ∆'s person (e.g., time-bombs, poison) also qualify
1. π put in reasonable APPREHENSION
2. of IMMEDIATE battery
3. ∆'s INTENT
Must have MENACING gestures--words alone lack immediacy. BUT, words can NEGATE menacing gestures (e.g., conditional words ("if you weren't my friend, I'd hit you")
Apprehension = Belief of immediate battery. Apprehension ≠ Fear. Beware: David-and-Goliath, Unloaded Gun Problems.
Apprehension ≠ Fear. Even a diminutive person can assault a larger person, if the latter has a reasonable apprehension that he/she will be presently battered
ASSAULT—Unloaded Gun Problem
Focus on π's knowledge (beliefs). Would the π know or have reason to believe that a gun is loaded—i.e., that ∆ is CAPABLE of an immediate battery.
1. ∆ commits act of RESTRAINT that
2. Confines π to a BOUNDED area
FALSE IMPRISONMENT—act of RESTRAINT?
Omission (of pre-existing duty)
π knows about restraint or is harmed by it
FALSE IMPRISONMENT—BOUNDED area?
NOT bounded IF (1) reasonable means of escape, (2) that π can reasonably discover.
Note: Reasonable ≠ dangerous, disgusting, humiliating, hidden
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (IIED)—Elements?
1. OUTRAGEOUS conduct
2. π must suffer from SEVERE distress
"Conduct that exceeds all bounds of decency tolerated in a civilized society." But, mere INSULTS without more ≠ outrageous or actionable
a. Conduct is continuous or repetitive
b. ∆ is a common-carrier or inn-keeper (duty of courtesy)
c. π is a member of a fragile class of persons (e.g., children, elderly, pregnant women)
Mildly annoyed/irritated/chagrined ≠ severe
No particular showing required (not necessary to show medical evidence/treatment, or physical manifestations/impact)
Strangely, actual intent is not a strict requirement—reckless conduct is sufficient
TRESPASS TO LAND—Elements?
1. ∆ commits act of PHYSICAL INVASION
2. π is in POSSESSION of the land
TRESPASS TO LAND—Invasion?
Focus: Did ∆ want/intend to cross the boundary of π's land through a voluntary act?
TRESPASS TO LAND—PHYSICAL invasion?
No—Intangible (e.g., light, smoke, noise)
TRESPASS TO LAND—Possessor?
Focus is on POSSESSION, not ownership
TRESPASS TO CHATTELS—Defined?
MODEST interference with personal property, e.g., small but deliberate damage, keying a car
SIGNIFICANT interference with personal property, e.g., theft, demolition of a car
"Forced Sale." π can recover the FULL MARKET VALUE of the chattel—not just its rental or repair value.
NB: NY Distinction—A bona fide purchaser for value can't be a converter.
Strict Liability : Elements
1) Absolute duty to make safe
2) Breach of absolute duty
3) Actual and proximate causation