​

Foundational Concepts: Intent & Act

​

1. Black Letter Law

• Prima Facie Elements: In all intentional torts, “Intent” and “Act” are two distinct prima facie elements. They should not be used interchangeably.
• Volitional Act: A voluntary, conscious action (e.g., pulling a chair). It is not a reflexive movement or one done while unconscious (e.g., during a seizure).
• Intent: Can be established via two pathways:
  1. Specific Intent: An actor intends the consequences of his conduct if his goal is to bring about those consequences.
  2. General Intent: An actor intends the consequences if he knows with substantial certainty (near certainty) that those consequences will occur.
     • Note: Substantial certainty is a high bar. It does not mean “careless” or “negligent.” It implies “near certainty”.

​

2. Nuance & Policy

• Mental Disability: Mental disability does not negate intent. A person with a mental illness can form the requisite intent to commit an intentional tort. The law does not take mental issues into account for liability unless the person is legally insane (cannot distinguish right from wrong).
• Negligence vs. Intent: Unreasonable conduct (like texting and driving) is negligence, not general intent, because a car accident is not “substantially certain” to occur every time one texts.

​

Doctrine of Transferred Intent

​

1. Black Letter Law

• The Rule: When a defendant intends to commit one of the five common law writs of trespass (intentional torts) but accomplishes another, the intent can be transferred from the intended tort to the accomplished tort.
• Applicable Torts (Writs of Trespass): The doctrine applies only to:
  1. Battery
  2. Assault
  3. False Imprisonment
  4. Trespass to Land
  5. Trespass to Chattels.
• Transfers: Intent can transfer between torts (e.g., intended Assault $\rightarrow$ committed Battery) or between victims (e.g., intended to hit A $\rightarrow$ hit B).

​

2. Key Cases

• Talmage v. Smith
  • Facts: A man threw a stick at boys on a roof to scare them (Assault) but ended up blinding one of the boys (Battery).
  • Holding: The intent to scare (Assault) was transferred to satisfy the intent element for Battery.

​

3. Hypotheticals

• The Beer Bottle: A man throws a beer bottle intending to hit Neighbor A (Battery), but misses and hits Neighbor B. Neighbor B has a valid cause of action for Battery via transferred intent.
• The Missed Stick: If Defendant throws a stick at Victim A to scare them (Assault) but hits Victim B, Defendant is liable to Victim B for Battery.

​

4. Policy

• Deterrence: The policy is to deter intentionally tortious or antisocial behavior. The actor must answer for consequences, even if visited upon someone other than the intended victim.

​

Trespass to Land

​

1. Black Letter Law

• Definition: An intentional act that brings about (causes) a physical invasion of the plaintiff’s real property.
• Intent Scope: The intent required is the intent to do the underlying act constituting the trespass (e.g., walking, throwing an object), not the intent to trespass or invade property.
• Mistake: Mistake is not a defense. Thinking the land belongs to you is not a defense if you voluntarily entered the land.
• Scope of Property: Trespass can occur on the surface, below the surface (e.g., tunnels), or above the surface (e.g., drones, crop dusters, but not high-altitude planes).
• Damages: Damages are not a prima facie element. A plaintiff can recover without showing actual damage to the land to protect the possessory interest.

​

2. Hypotheticals

• The Property Line: A neighbor builds a fence or walks on land they sincerely believe is theirs. A survey later shows they were over the property line. They are liable for Trespass to Land because they intended the act of walking/building there.
• The Trash Can: Turning a trash can over so contents spill onto a neighbor’s yard constitutes trespass (physical invasion) even without personal entry.
• The Accidental Fall: If a person trips and falls onto a neighbor’s land, this is not trespass to land because there was no intent to do the underlying act (it was not volitional).

​

Trespass to Chattels

​

1. Black Letter Law

• Definition: An intentional act by the defendant that interferes with the plaintiff’s right of possession in a chattel (personal property).
• Intent: The intent is to do the act constituting the interference (e.g., taking the object). Mistake regarding ownership is not a defense.
• Damages/Interference: Involves impairment of condition, quality, value, or deprivation of use for a substantial time.

​

2. Hypotheticals

• The Mistaken Phone: If Defendant takes Plaintiff’s iPhone thinking it is their own, they have committed Trespass to Chattels because they intended to take the phone.
• Keying a Car: Keying a car is Trespass to Chattels (interference/damage)

​

Conversion

​

1. Black Letter Law

• Definition: An intentional act by the defendant interfering with the plaintiff’s right of possession of the chattel that is so serious as to require the defendant to pay the full value of the chattel.
• Distinction from Trespass to Chattels: The difference is the degree of interference. Minor interference is Trespass to Chattels; major/total destruction or long-term deprivation is Conversion.

​

2. Remedies

• Fair Market Value: The primary remedy is the fair market value of the chattel determined at the time of conversion (forced sale). It is not based on the original purchase price or replacement cost.
• Replevin: A legal remedy where the plaintiff seeks the actual return of the chattel (often used for items with sentimental value) rather than monetary damages.

​

3. Hypotheticals

• Car Destruction: If Defendant burns Plaintiff’s car to a crisp, it is Conversion (requires full value payment). If Defendant only keys the car, it is Trespass to Chattels (pay for repairs).
• Duration of Taking: Taking a phone for 5 minutes is Trespass to Chattels. Taking a phone for a week (requiring the owner to buy a new one) is Conversion.

​

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

​

1. Black Letter Law

• Prima Facie Elements:
  1. Intent: Specific (purpose to cause distress) or General (reckless/substantial certainty).
  2. Act: Volitional conduct.
  3. Causation: The conduct caused the distress.
  4. Extreme and Outrageous Conduct: Conduct that transcends all bounds of decency tolerated by a civilized society.
  5. Severe Emotional Distress: Distress beyond mere upset, often requiring physical manifestation (though modernly less strict).
• Insulting Language: Mere insults or “bad manners” are not extreme and outrageous conduct
  • Exceptions:
    1. Special Relationship: Innkeepers (hotels) and Common Carriers (airlines/buses) have a higher duty of courtesy.
    2. Known Sensitivity: If the defendant knows the plaintiff has a specific sensitivity (e.g., elderly, pregnant, high blood pressure) and exploits it.
• Usage Rule: IIED should only be charged/discussed when the injury is entirely emotional. If there is a physical tort (Battery/Assault), pain and suffering damages are “parasitic” to that tort, and IIED is unnecessary.

​

2. Key Cases / Context

• State Rubbish Collectors (1952): The case where California recognized IIED as a new cause of action to cover threats that didn’t fit other torts.

​

3. Hypotheticals

• The Future Threat: Defendant tells Plaintiff, “I’m going to come over and burn your house down.” This is not Assault (not imminent), but it is IIED.
• The Nursing Home Prank: Scaring an elderly resident known to have heart issues can constitute IIED due to known sensitivity.

​

Bystander Recovery for IIED

​

1. Black Letter Law

• Rule: A third party can recover for IIED when witnessing injury to another if specific criteria are met.
• Elements:
  1. Plaintiff was present when the injury occurred to the other person.
  2. Plaintiff is a close relative of the injured party.
  3. Defendant knew that the plaintiff was present and a close relative.
• Intent: The defendant must have the intent to cause distress to the bystander, which is established by the defendant’s knowledge of their presence and relationship.

​

2. Hypotheticals

• The Neighbor vs. The Wife: Defendant hits Husband with a bat.
  • Scenario A (Neighbor): Neighbor witnesses it. Neighbor cannot sue for IIED (not a close relative).
  • Scenario B (Wife): Wife witnesses it. Defendant knows Wife is present. Wife can sue for IIED.
• The Phone Call: If a wife is called and told her husband was stabbed, she cannot sue for IIED because she was not present when the injury occurred.