Intentional Torts - Satz PDF

Preview

Summary

Satz...

Description

Satz Law 550 10/27/20 Punitive Damages (Review)  Malice, insult, oppression, usually pertain to intentional torts but can also apply to negligence Mathias v Accor Economy Lodging  Brother and sister bitten by bedbugs, request new room, new room also has bedbugs, third room had bedbugs, moved to fourth room.  Huge damages, because no incentive to fumigate the whole hotel and can refuse to do so and go undetected.  Why might U.S. care about ratio of compensatory damage to punitive damage? General concern about overburdening defendants INTENTIONAL TORTS (Torts other than negligence) Take-Away Points  Intent may be established with purpose or “knowledge with substantial certainty” Specific intent is not required.  Harm and offense is objective.

  

Battery P. 609 Prima facie case: (1) A acts, (2) intending to cause (a) harmful contact with P, or (b) contact with P that is offensive, and (3) A’s act causes such contact If no touching, no battery. “Touching” is term of art, may be indirect but touching an object in contact with person will not always count as touching Key terms: acts, intending, harmful, contact, offensive, causes

Cecarelli v Maher  Straightforward battery Paul v Holbrook  Harassed coworker, asked her to wear revealing clothing, massaged shoulders  The intention doesn’t have to be to harm; it just has to be an intention to have a contact  What would be offensive to a reasonable person?

Doctrine of extended personality: unwanted touching could be someone pulling something from our hands; protective zone around body INTENT Vosburg v Putney  One kid kicks the other in the shin, kicking occurred in February and aggravated injury that occurred in January.  Regardless of Putney’s intent, his act of kicking Vosburg in a school room is unlawful Cole v Hibberd  Adults drinking  Intent doesn’t have to correlate directly to the injury Intersection of intentional tort & governmental immunity Wagner v State  Broadest standard for intent  “You have to intend to touch.” Garratt v Dailey  Narrow standard for intent  Acting with a knowledge that, to a substantial certainty, harmful effects will occur

  



 

KNOWLEDGE WITH SUBSTANTIAL CERTAINTY Restatement view of knowledge: subjective standard of knowledge, what the person knew at the time they acted The issue is whether the actor knows their actions will cause harm, NOT whether it will pose a risk of harm MORE than foreseeability ASSAULT Prima facie case: (1) A acts, (2) intending to cause in P the apprehension of an imminent (a) harmful contact with P or (b) offensive contact with P, and (3) A’s act causes P reasonably to apprehend such contact Fear or other apprehension must be REASONABLE Threatening words may invoke liability for assault if threatened contact is imminent

Beach v Hancock  Points gun and snaps it, plaintiff doesn’t know if it’s loaded

2

Brooker v Silverthorne  $2,000 verdict for plaintiff for emotional distress; they reverse lower court’s judgment and says she did not state a cause of action. The words weren’t enough because not imminence. Vetter v Morgan  The defendant had the ability to harm the plaintiff; close proximity NEXT CLASS: Transferred intent and defenses to battery and assault

3...