Intentional Torts: Defenses & Specific Applications
1. Black Letter Law / Rule
- Affirmative Defenses: Even if a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case for an intentional tort, a defendant may avoid liability by proving an affirmative defense. A valid affirmative defense acts as a complete bar to recovery.
- Consent:
- Express Consent: Can be verbal or written permission.
- Scope of Consent: Consent is invalid if the defendant’s act exceeds the scope of the consent given (e.g., operating on a different body part than agreed upon).
- Implied Consent (Emergency): Consent is implied by law (emergency privilege) if action is necessary to save a life or prevent serious bodily harm, and the plaintiff is unable to consent.
- Defense of Property:
- One may use reasonable force to prevent the commission of a tort against one’s property.
- Deadly Force Limitation: One may never use deadly force solely to defend property.
- Mechanical Devices: One cannot do indirectly (using a mechanical trap) what one cannot do directly (shoot a trespasser).
- Shopkeeper’s Privilege: A shopkeeper has a privilege to detain a person for investigation if:
- There is a reasonable belief as to the theft.
- The detention is conducted in a reasonable manner (no deadly force).
- The detention is for a reasonable time (to conduct the investigation).
- Public Necessity: If property is destroyed for the public good (e.g., to stop a fire spreading), the defense is absolute, and no compensation is owed.
- Private Necessity: A defendant acting out of private necessity (e.g., saving their own property/life during a storm) is relieved of the technical tort of trespass but must compensate the plaintiff for any actual damages caused.
- The property owner cannot eject the defendant (e.g., cut a rope) while the emergency exists.
2. Key Cases
- Mohr v. Williams
- Facts: Plaintiff consented to surgery on her right ear. While the plaintiff was unconscious, the surgeon operated on the left ear instead because it was more diseased. The surgery was successful.
- Holding: The plaintiff successfully sued for Battery. The doctor exceeded the scope of express consent. The fact that the surgery was beneficial affects damages but does not negate the battery.
- Katko v. Briney
- Facts: Homeowners rigged a shotgun trap in a boarded-up farmhouse to fire if the bedroom door was opened. A trespasser entered and was shot in the leg.
- Holding: Defense of property failed. The use of a spring gun constituted deadly force, which is impermissible to defend property alone. Life is valued over property.
- Bonkowski v. Arlan’s Department Store
- Facts: A security guard stopped a woman leaving a store based on a tip that she stole jewelry. He asked her to empty her purse. She sued for false imprisonment.
- Holding: The store had a valid Shopkeeper’s Privilege affirmative defense because there was a reasonable belief of theft and the detention was reasonable in time and manner.
- Surocco v. Geary
- Facts: The Mayor of San Francisco blew up the plaintiff’s building to stop the spread of a major fire. The plaintiff claimed they could have saved their personal property if the building hadn’t been destroyed prematurely.
- Holding: Public Necessity. The act was for the public good, serving as a complete bar to recovery. The city owed no compensation.
- Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. Co.
- Facts: A ship was tied to a dock during a storm. To prevent the ship from sinking, the crew kept it tied to the dock, which caused damage to the dock.
- Holding: Private Necessity. The ship owner was privileged to remain attached to the dock to save the ship (suspending trespass liability), but was liable for the actual damage caused to the dock.
3. Hypotheticals & Examples
- The “Good” Surgeon: A doctor gives a flu shot. This is technically a harmful/offensive touching (battery). However, the cause of action fails because the patient has provided Consent, a valid affirmative defense.
- Bicycle Thief: If someone tries to steal a bicycle, the owner can use reasonable force (pulling the bike away, pushing the thief) to prevent the commission of the tort. However, the owner cannot pull out a gun and shoot the thief (deadly force).
- Transferred Intent (Exam Review):
- Scenario: A motorcyclist rides rapidly at a pedestrian intending to scare them (Assault) but swerves late and accidentally hits them (Battery).
- Analysis: Even though there was no specific intent to batter (touch), there was intent to Assault (create imminent apprehension). Under Transferred Intent, the intent to assault transfers to satisfy the intent element for Battery.
Negligence: Overview & Prima Facie Elements
1. Black Letter Law / Rule
- Fault-Based System: Negligence is a fault-based system of recovery, distinct from intentional torts and strict liability.
- Prima Facie Elements: To establish negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements:
- Duty
- Breach (The fault element)
- Causation (Causation in Fact and Proximate Cause)
- Damages
- Order of Analysis: While essays should start with Duty, the course structure begins with Breach because it is the core fault element.
Negligence: Element 1 - Breach (Proving Fault)
1. Black Letter Law / Rule
- Definition of Breach: Breach is established by showing that the defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care of a reasonable, prudent person under the circumstances.
- Note: This is the first and most common pathway to prove breach. Other pathways include Negligence Per Se (statutory violation) and Res Ipsa Loquitur, to be covered later.
- Role of Jury: It is generally up to the jury to decide if the conduct met the standard of care.
- Expert Testimony: When the standard of care involves specialized knowledge (e.g., medical malpractice, engineering) outside the experience of an ordinary juror, expert testimony is required to establish the standard.
2. Key Cases
- Lubitz v. Wells
- Facts: A father left a golf club lying in the backyard. His son swung it and hit a playmate.
- Holding: A golf club is not an inherently dangerous object. Leaving it in the yard is not conduct falling below the standard of care of a reasonable, prudent person. The demurrer was sustained.
- Distinction: Leaving a loaded gun would be a breach.
- Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.
- Facts: A water main burst due to severe frost that had not occurred in 25 years. The pipes were built to withstand average temperatures.
- Holding: No negligence. A reasonable person acts with reference to average circumstances and is not liable for accidental occurrences outside of those average circumstances (unforeseeable extremes).
- Pipher v. Parsell
- Facts: Three teens in a truck. A passenger grabbed the wheel; the driver corrected but said nothing. 30 seconds later, the passenger grabbed the wheel again, causing a crash.
- Holding: The driver may be liable for the second incident. While the first grab was unforeseeable, the failure to take preventative action (warn or eject) after the first grab may be conduct falling below the standard of care. This is a question for the jury.
- Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Krayenbuhl
- Facts: A child’s foot was severed by an unlocked railroad turntable.
- Holding: The jury must decide if the railroad’s conduct (locking mechanisms vs. utility) fell below the standard of care. This often requires balancing the cost of safety measures against the utility of the operation.
3. Nuance & Policy
- Cost/Safety Trade-off: One can design products to be virtually indestructible (e.g., cars that withstand 200mph crashes), but the standard of care only requires reasonable safety relative to cost and utility.
- Children & Standard of Care:
- General Rule: Children are held to the standard of care of a reasonable, prudent child of like age and sophistication.
- Exception: When engaging in adult activities (e.g., driving a car), children are held to the adult standard of care.
Legal Process & Intent Clarifications
1. Black Letter Law / Rule
- Demurrer: A motion filed by a defendant arguing that, even assuming all facts in the complaint are true, the plaintiff has failed to state a legal cause of action (e.g., missing the intent element).
- Specific vs. General Intent:
- Trespass (Land/Chattels): The intent requirement is merely to do the underlying act constituting the trespass (e.g., intending to lift one’s leg onto the property), not necessarily the intent to invade rights or commit the tort.
- Battery/Assault: The intent must be to cause the consequence (harmful/offensive touching or imminent apprehension thereof).
- False Imprisonment: The intent must be to bring about the consequence of confining the plaintiff to a bounded area.
- Transferred Intent: This doctrine applies between five torts: Battery, Assault, False Imprisonment, Trespass to Land, and Trespass to Chattels. Intent can transfer from tort to tort (e.g., intended assault becomes battery) or person to person.
2. Exam Technique
- Triaging Issues: In a timed exam (e.g., 1 hour), do not argue “dead issues” or non-issues. Outline first to prioritize the “hot” issues (those most debatable based on facts).
- Identifying Parties: Always clearly label the parties in the analysis (e.g., “Plaintiff vs. Defendant”) to avoid confusion.
- Problem Solving: Do not write and problem-solve simultaneously. Outline to solve the legal problem, then write to communicate the solution.