​

I. Introduction to Tort Liability

​

1. Black Letter Law / Rule

• Purpose of Tort Law: To make the plaintiff “whole again.
• Remedy: The primary tool available to the jury is monetary compensatio.
• Fault-Based System: Torts is a fault-based system of recover. There are three pathways to prove fault:
  1. Intentional Torts: The defendant acted intentionall.
  2. Negligence: The defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of car.
  3. Strict Liability: Liability without a showing of fault, usually reserved for abnormally dangerous activities.

​

2. Key Cases

• Spano (New York Case):
  • Facts: Involved damage caused by blasting (dynamite).
  • Rule/Holding: Illustrates Strict Liability. If a defendant engages in an “abnormally dangerous activity” (like blasting or owning a crocodile), they are liable for resulting injuries regardless of fault or care taken. The policy is about who bears the cost of the damage: the person who engaged in the dangerous activity or the innocent neighbor.

​

II. Intent

​

1. Black Letter Law / Rule

• Specific Intent: An actor intends the consequences of his conduct if his goal is to bring about those consequences.
• General Intent: An actor intends the consequences of his conduct if he knows with substantial certainty that those consequences will occur.
  • Note: “Substantial certainty” is a high threshold; it is not merely “should have known” (which is negligence).

​

2. Key Cases

• Garratt v. Dailey (1955):
  • Facts: Brian, a 5-year-old child, pulled a lawn chair out from under the plaintiff as she was sitting.
  • Rule/Holding: Intent $\neq$ Malice. Intent does not require a desire to injure, “ill will,” or bad motive. It only requires a volitional act performed with the purpose (specific intent) or substantial certainty (general intent) that contact would occur. The court found that if the child knew with substantial certainty the plaintiff would hit the ground, he acted with intent.
• Wagner (2005):
  • Facts: Plaintiff was attacked in a K-Mart by a mentally disabled man being supervised by state employees.
  • Rule/Holding: Intent only requires the intent to make contact, not the intent to cause offense or harm.

​

3. Hypotheticals & Examples

• The Cane Fight: Two dogs fight; owner tries to separate them with a cane and accidentally hits a person.
  • Analysis: Did he have the goal to hit the person? (No = No Specific Intent). Did he know with substantial certainty he would hit the person? (Likely No = No General Intent). If no intent is proven, the theory of recovery shifts to Negligence.
• Texting and Driving: A driver texts and rear-ends another car.
  • Analysis: This is generally Negligence, not an intentional tort. While the act of texting was voluntary, the driver did not know with substantial certainty that an accident would occur.

​

III. Battery

​

1. Black Letter Law / Rule

• Definition: Battery is an intentional act that causes a harmful or offensive touching of the plaintiff’s person.
• Prima Facie Elements:
  1. Intent: (Specific or General).
  2. Act: Must be a Volitional Act (conscious/willed movement).
  3. Causation: The act must cause the resul.
  4. Harmful or Offensive Touching: Measured by a *Reasonable Person Standard.
  5. Plaintiff’s Person: Includes anything intimately connected to the plaintiff’s body.
• Damages: Damages are not a prima facie element of battery; a plaintiff does not need to prove injury to recover (unlike negligence).

​

2. Key Cases

• Cohen v. Petty:
  • Facts: Driver fainted while driving, causing an accident. He had no history of fainting.
  • Rule/Holding: The Act must be Volitional. Fainting or a seizure is not a volitional act. Therefore, there is no liability for battery or negligence unless the defendant knew of a history of fainting (which would be negligence/recklessness).
• McGuire v. Almy (1937):
  • Facts: A mentally ill patient struck a nurse with a furniture leg.
  • Rule/Holding: Mental Illness does not negate Intent. A mentally ill person is liable for intentional torts if they are capable of forming the requisite intent (e.g., intent to strike), regardless of the delusion or motivation behind it.

​

3. Hypotheticals & Examples

• The Tie Yank: Defendant grabs Plaintiff’s tie or flips their hat.
  • Analysis: Even if the Defendant never touches the Plaintiff’s skin, the tie/hat is “intimately connected” to the person. This satisfies the touching element of battery.
• Shoulder Tap: Tapping someone on the shoulder to ask for directions.
  • Analysis: Even if the specific plaintiff is offended (e.g., “I am the King of England”), this is not battery because a Reasonable Person would not find it offensive.

​

IV. Assault

​

1. Black Letter Law / Rule

• Definition: Assault is an intentional act that places the plaintiff in the imminent apprehension of a harmful or offensive touching.
• Prima Facie Elements:
  1. Inten.
  2. Act (Overt).
  3. Causatio.
  4. Imminent Apprehension.
  5. Of a Harmful/Offensive Touching.
• Apparent Ability: The defendant’s apparent ability to commit the battery is sufficient; actual ability is not required (e.g., an unloaded gun can cause assault if the plaintiff doesn’t know it is unloaded).
• Words Alone: Words alone are insufficient to constitute assault. They must be accompanied by an overt act.
• Immediacy: The apprehended contact must be immediate; future threats do not constitute assault.

​

3. Hypotheticals & Examples

• The Unloaded Gun: Pointing an unloaded gun at someone who believes it is loaded.
  • Analysis: This is assault because the plaintiff has a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm based on apparent ability.
• Future Threat: “I am going to hit you tomorrow.”
  • Analysis: Not assault because the threat is not *immediate.
• Raised Fist: Saying “I am going to hit you” while raising a fist.
  • Analysis: This creates assault. The words alone are insufficient, but the words accompanied by the overt act (raising the fist) create imminent apprehension.

​

V. False Imprisonment

​

1. Black Letter Law / Rule

• Definition: False imprisonment is an intentional act or omission to act (where there is a duty to act) that confines or restrains the plaintiff to a bounded area.
• Awareness: The plaintiff must generally be aware of the confinement at the time it occurs.
• Methods of Confinement:
  1. Physical Barriers: Locking a door.
  2. Physical Force: Grabbing a wrist or coat.
  3. Threat of Force: Directed at the plaintiff or a loved one (e.g., “Don’t move or I’ll shoot”).
  4. Failure to Provide Escape: Specifically where there is an affirmative duty to do so.

​

3. Hypotheticals & Examples

• The Locked Sleeper: A person is locked in a room while asleep and wakes up after the door is unlocked, never knowing they were trapped.
  • Analysis: Generally not false imprisonment because there was no awareness of confinement.
• The Immigrant (Omission): An immigrant on a boat (Ellis Island era) is refused permission to leave the boat despite a promise/duty to let them ashore.
  • Analysis: This constitutes an omission to act where there is a duty, satisfying the element for false imprisonment.

​

VI. Nuance & Policy

• Civil vs. Criminal Law: There is a “firewall” between civil torts and criminal law. Do not try to reconcile the definitions (e.g., “Guilt” vs. “Liability”). They are distinct systems with different rules.
• Insanity Defense: The insanity defense (a criminal law concept) does not apply to intentional torts. Society has determined that mentally ill persons are liable for their torts to ensure victims are compensated.
• Sovereign Immunity: Under common law, one could not sue the government (“The King”). Modern law retains this but allows for waivers (e.g., suing the state under specific statutes), often requiring procedural steps like filing a claim within 6 months.