Intentional Torts Outline by icequeenlcp


More Info
									    Intentional Torts Outline
How do you start a Tort claim?
   I. Initial Conference with lawyer
                — Lawyer gets facts to determine if has a case, if case worth taking $$, decides to take client or not
  II. Payment
                — Contingency fee-               (re. Abrams & Abrams)
                     Barber/Allen Factors
                       1.) time and labor required in the case
                       2.) novelty and difficulty of the questions presented
                       3.) skill required to perform the necessary legal services
                       4.) preclusion of other employment by the lawyer due to acceptance of the case
                       5.) customary fee for similar work
                       6.) contingency of a fee
                       7.) time pressures imposed in the case
                       8.) award involved and the results obtained
                       9.) experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer
                      10.) “undesirability” of the case
                      11.) nature and length of the professional relationship between the lawyer and the client
                      12.) fee awards made in similar cases.
 III. Investigation (for pretrial negotiations and trial)
                — Gather all the facts: & Get a strategy: from legal opinions to get
                       1.) What they must prove
                       2.) Where weakness is in case
                       3.) Types of questions to be asked
                       4.) What must be investigated
 IV. Demand Letter & Negotiations
                — Sends letter to Δ telling them about the claim and allows parties to negotiate before formal case starts

How is the tort process started in court?
   I. Filing the Complaint (clerk's office)
                — Complaint must give:
                       1.) statement of court's jurisdiction
                       2.) Claim showing the ∏ is entitled to relief
                       3.) Demand for judgment (damages $$)
                — Notice to Δ, enough information to answer or defend claim
                — Δ usually insured, will contact insurance company and they will provide attorney to defend
  II. Motion to Dismiss
                — Filed if claim doesn't make sufficient allegations to satisfy the requirements to justify an award
 III. The Answer
                — If motion to dismiss denied, Δ files answer to each of the allegations in the complaint by admission, denial, or refusal to admit
                     or deny
                — Very little information given, only tells ∏ the affirmative defenses (self defense, comparative fault, or the running of the statute
                     of limitations); not denial - justification for actions.
                — If affirmative defenses are not raised in answer, will not be allowed as defense in trial
                — New allegations that justify Δ's conduct or reason to dismiss case
 IV. Discovery
                — Deposition, Request documents (from other side), and Interrogatories (written questions seek to answer)
  V. Motion for Summary Disposition (or Summary Judgment)
                — Δ will claim that there are not disputed issues of fact and judge can rule on case
                — Factors that must be met for grant of summary judgment to determine that there is "no genuine issues to any material fact"
                       1.) Facts set forth by the opponents' affidavits will be taken as true
                       2.) The depositions, admissions, etc are to be liberally construed in favor of the opponent
                       3.) Any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact must be resolved against the proponent of the
                     (Barbe v Indianapolis Water Company: Trespass, reservoir, serious injury)
What happens in trial?
   I. Trial and motion for directed verdict
                — ∏ calls witnesses for testimony, Δ x-examines (opposing party can object to evidence pre-trial or during called Motion in
                — ∏ rests, Δ will move to dismiss or motion for directed verdict (to argue no sufficient evidence)
                — Δ presents case, ∏ chance for rebuttal, closing arguments
  II. Jury Instructions
                — Most states have patterned jury instructions, Δ and ∏ will propose their instructions, judge decides
 III. Post-Trial Motions
                — JNOV (judgment not obstante verdicto)- asks judge to reverse jury's decision on grounds no reasonable jury could reach this
                — Motion for new trial - contends errors were made which makes jury verdict unfair or excessive
 IV. Appeal
                — To matters of law (not factual decisions of the jury) and only decisions that were objected to during trial

                                                       Exam Outline Page 1
What is a Tort?
                  — A civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy (excludes breach of contract)
                  — Civil claims need to be proven by the preponderance of the evidence
                  —   Provide peaceful means of resolving disputes between and adjudicating the rights of the parties
                  —   Encourage persons to act in a socially acceptable manner
                  —   Discourage wrongful behavior
                  —   Restore injured parties their "rightful position"

The Old English Writ System
          Writ of Trespass -(Original "Fab 5" Intentional Torts)
                     — issued for direct and forcible entries, damages were presumed and can transfer intent
          Writ of Trespass on the Case - (developed in Negligence)
                     — for all other situations where persons suffered injuries that weren't direct or forcible; injured parties DID need to
                         prove damages

7 Intentional Torts                                                Transferred intent- if defendant intended to commit one of the fab five
   1. Assault                                                      intentional torts but his acts instead of or in addition to, result in the
   2. Battery                           Can transfer intent        commission of one of the other fab five torts, defendant is liable for that
   3. False Imprisonment                between The Fab 5          other tort even though it was not the tort he intended to commit.
   4. Trespass to Land                  only
   5. Trespass to Chattel                                          First element to prove an Intentional Tort is the INTENT of the Δ
                                                                   (INTENT IS NEVER ALONE! You must have an intent to do
  6. IIED                                                          something) How do you prove intent? (subjective test)
  7. Conversion

    ► Elements of Intent:                             • ∏ another boy roof of Δ's sheds at night. Δ ordered boys to get down, as they were
                                                   v    complying Δ threw a stick in the direction of one of the boys
                                                 Smith• The stick missed the intended boy but hit ∏ causing him to lose sight in eye
           1) KWSC would occur                          H: Δ had the desire to throw the stick at one of the boys (a willful act), knowing that it
                                                STICK   could cause harm and that intent transferred to the ∏ even if he wasn't the intended target.
                       OR                      THROW    Therefore the Δ is liable.

           2) Purpose/Desire result of act                Garratt v Dailey • Δ 5 yrs, moved chair from behind ∏ when she went to sit down, she fell
                                                          OLD LADY v         and broke her hip and other injuries -∏ filed suit for personal injuries
                                                             CHILD         • H: he did not desire that she hit the ground, but that he may had KWSC
                                                                             that she was trying to sit when he pulled the chair away, and would hit the
            Age not a factor
                                                                                             Ranson     • Δ hunting for wolves, sees ∏'s dog, thinks it's a
            Ignorance of the law no excuse:                                                   v          wolf, shoots dog--It looked like a wolf……
                                                                                             Kitner     • H: Δ's desire was that he was there to shoot
                 it is irrelevant that the defendant did not know that the
                   action would constitute a tort or a crime. Thus in the law of                          something, even though he didn't mean to shoot
                                                                                            Wolf Dog      ∏ dog, Δ still clearly liable
                   intentional torts, “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
                   Doesn't matter why the act was done, still intent to do the               Masters    • ∏ and Δ playing on truck, Δ told ∏ to get off,
                   act                                                                         v          refused, crying said was frightened.
                                                                                             Becker     • Δ pried ∏ fingers off causing ∏ to fall
            No intent to harm necessary:                                                                sustaining serious injuries
                                                                                              girls on
                 A person can have the intent necessary for an intentional                            • H: whether Δ intended to harm is irrelevant, Δ
                   tort even though he does not desire to “harm” the victim,                             intended to pry ∏'s fingers off the truck.
                   and does not have a hostile intent.                                        Banks • ∏ ejected Δ from club, fight broke
                 Don't have to know the act was bad. Minor children can be                     v    • Δ says blacked out without memory after fight,
                   shown to have intended acts and the specific consequences                 Dawkins   drove home, “raving" mad drove back to the
                   of them                                                                             club, with shot gun
                                                                                                     • Δ in a busy club, singled out ∏, shot in face,
            Insane persons are liable for their torts:                                                sustained serious injuries
                    Insane people do not automatically escape liability for                          • H: a mental condition not a defense in torts,
                   committing intentional torts.                                                       and not proven in case. However, intent surely
                                                                                                       was and the injuries he inflicted upon the Δ
                                                                                                       were grievous and severe

                                                      Exam Outline Page 2
► Assault

      1. An actor is subject to liability to another for assault if:
          (a) He acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact
               with the person of the other or a third person, or an
               imminent apprehension of such contact
          (b) The other is thereby put in such imminent apprehension

                A threatened to shoot B, but doesn't intend to actually
                shoot. (A intended to put B in imminent apprehension of a
                harmful bodily contact - Assault)

► Elements of Assault:

     1) Intent (to apprehend)
                     A runs a tavern with her husband. One night when
                     the tavern is closed, B demands wine. A leans out the
                     window to tell him to go away, and B swings at her        Holloway      ∏ was sitting in the back seat of the car, the
                     with a hatchet. He misses, but A is frightened by the         V         gun in Δ's hand being pointed at driver. ∏
                                                                               Wachovia      could see the barrel of the gun and was
                     attempt. B has committed the tort of assault, even
                                                                              Bank & Trust   scared of being shot. Although the intent of
                     though A was not touched.                                    Co         the incident wasn't at her, that intent
                                                                                             transfers to her.
     2) Reasonable Apprehension (believes has ability to carry out)              Car
                                                                              Repossession   Holding: Assault imminent apprehension of
     3) Imminent of battery (H/O contact)                                                    being shot
                    A shoots gun at B, trying to hit B. A hopes B won't
                    see him, but he does. B is frightened. The shot                          Infant passenger too young to know the
                    misses (intended to cause a battery but misses,                          danger present, therefore could not have
                                                                                             apprehension of harmful or offensive
                                                                                             contact, no assault for him
     4) w/o consent

      to have apprehension must be in view of person
              A standing behind B, raises his gun to shoot B. A
              bystander, sees and disarms A before he can shoot. B then
              turns around, and realizes for the first time the danger that
              he has been subjected to. Because B was not aware of the
              threatened harm at the time the threat existed, he cannot
              recover for assault, no matter how shaken up he becomes
              after the fact.

      Verbal provocation is not sufficient w/o physical motion

      Δ must have the apparent ability to cause the imminent contact.
            A threatens to shoot B, and leaves the room for the stated
            purpose of getting his revolver. A has not committed an
            assault on B.

      Apprehension is NOT fear.
            D points a pistol at P, threatening to shoot. P happens to
            know that D is holding unloaded weapon, Because P
            knows that D will not be able to make good his threat in the
            imminent future, there is no assault, regardless of how hard
            D is trying to frighten P.

                                              Exam Outline Page 3
► Battery:

         An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if:
          (a) He acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact
               with the person of the other or a third person, or an
               imminent apprehension of such contact
          (b) Harmful OR offensive contact with the person of the other
               directly or indirectly results

                       A intentionally punches B in the face.

► Elements of Battery:

     1) Intent (to contact)
                     A shoots at B, intending to hit him with the bullet.
                     (has intent for battery)

     2) Contact (with another)

     3) w/o consent

     4) Harmful


         Offensive (contact)
                      A spits on B. (B not "harmed" but her dignity is             Picard v. Barry     Assault and battery; car brakes, Δ made ∏
                      offended)                                                   Pontiac-Buick Inc.   apprehensive that Δ was going to harm ∏
                                                                                                       when she took his picture and Δ touched the
                                                                                    TOUCHING           camera while ∏ was holding.
     5) Directly
                                                                                     CAMERA            Holding: Δ intended his acts, therefore the
          or                                                                                           Δ's offensive contact with an object (the
        Indirectly (H/O contact was)                                                                   camera) attached to (in her hand) or
                      A causes harm by ordering his dog to attack B                                    identified with ∏'s body was sufficient to
                      (indirect)                                                                       constitute a battery.

      It is not necessary that a person have actual awareness of the
       contact at the time it occurs.
             A kisses B while she's sleeping (battery)

      Battery can occur where a person consents to a certain level of
       bodily contact , but then the person goes beyond the consented
       level of contact.
            A gets intentionally checked hard into the boards by B
              while playing hockey. A gets badly injured by the wall.
                   if A intentionally delivered a body check (body
                     contact) that went beyond the level A knew or should
                     known B impliedly consenting to, the it would be a

      Direct unpermitted and intentional offensive or harmful contacts
       with some things such as clothing or a cane or, indeed, anything
       directly grasped by the hand which are so intimately connected
       with one's hand as to be universally regarded as part of the

         Indirect contact: It is not necessary that the defendant touch the
         plaintiff with his own body. It is sufficient if he causes the contact
         indirectly (e.g., by ordering his dog to attack the plaintiff.)

      Defendants motive is irrelevant as long as the contact is
       considered (by a reasonable person) as harmful or offensive.

                                               Exam Outline Page 4
► False Imprisonment (FI)

     1) An actor is subjected to another for false imprisonment if
         (a) He acts intending to confine the other or a third person
              within boundaries fixed by the other
         (b) His act directly or indirectly results in such confinement of
              the other                                                            Eilers v. Co • ∏ abducted, confined against his will by a group
                      AND                                                                         that was hired by his family for deprogramming
         (c) The other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it                       • Religious group; although doctor tested ∏ and
                                                                                   RELIGIOU found he was not a harm to himself or others.
                                                                                    S BRAIN- • Holding: Δ intended to confine the ∏ for at
                D wants to have sex with P, and locks her in a room for 2          WASHING        least one week. Truly confined - boarded
                hrs hoping P will agree. She does not , and D lets her go.
                                                                                                  windows, guards, no other communications, ∏
                (Because D intentionally confined P for a substantial time it                     was aware was confined was in his attempts to
                is FI)                                                                            escape and being handcuffed, etc

► Elements of False Imprisonment:

     1) Intent (to confine)                                                         Δ maintain their purpose was to "help" -it is not a
                                                                                     defense to false imprisonment because the Δ had
     2) confinement (by words or actions, within fixed boundaries by                 good motives.
        actor)                                                                      One can confine by
                — A threatens to use force if B tries to escape (FI)                   — Using physical barriers
                — A refuses to let B to return to her own home. (Not FI                — Force or threat of immediate force
                     because B can go anywhere else)                                       against plaintiff, his family or his
     3) act that directly or indirectly results in the confinement of another          — Omission where defendant has a duty to
                  — A is shopping in a store, B, store security, believes                  act.
                       that a person, who is also shopping in the store, has           — Improper assertion of legal authority
                       attempted to shoplift. B orders all exits to the store to           (false arrest) .
                       be closed. This has the effect of confining A, who B
                       does not even know to be in the store. (FI indirectly
                       towards A)
                                                                                       the Restatement allows false imprisonment,
     4) the other is aware of the confinement or harmed by it                          even if plaintiff is not aware of the confinement,
                 — A puts B in a room with no windows, closes the door                 if the plaintiff is harmed.
                      and locks it. (B is aware confined knowing door is
                      locked = FI)
                 — A locked B in a hotel room, but B is asleep for the
                      entire 3 hour period, and B learns only later that was
                      confined (unaware - NO FI)

     5) no reasonable means of escape
                 — A puts B in a room with no windows, closes the door
                     and locks it. (B has no means of escape confined                Wal-Mart       Shopper accused of shoplifting by Δ
                     only exit is locked = FI)                                       Stores, Inc.   loss prevention officer, escorted to
                 — Employee locked in store after hours, but doesn't                      v.        manager's office, then told to take off
                     want to go through the ER exit because may lose job              Cockrell      his clothes and found nothing.
                     (NO FI, can exit (without harm) but are choosing not                           Also told ∏ to remove a bandage that
                     to)                                                            Transplant      he explained was from a recent
                     (Richardson v. Costco Wholesale Corp.)                          Bandage        surgery, insisted to see under.
                                                                                   Shopkeeper's     Apologized to ∏ and allowed to leave.
                     Employees accused Δ of being falsely imprisoned                 Privilege      Holding: Δ intended to detain, no
                     during the "collection procedure"; although exit door                          reasonable reason to detain, no
                     available at anytime                                                           reasonable search, ∏ aware of
                                                                                                    confinement and didn't feel could
     6) w/o consent or legal justification                                                          leave.
                                                                                    Defendant may be privileged to detain, either
      Shopkeeper's privilege: when a person reasonably believes that                through a valid arrest or detainment. (police
       another has stolen or is attempting to steal property, that person            officers, private citizens, shopkeepers
       has the justification to detain the other in a reasonable manner and          privilege).RESONABLE REASON,
       reasonable time to investigate the ownership of the property. The             REASONABLE MANNER,
       search is limited to the instances in which a search of the body is           REASONABLE TIME
       reasonably necessary to investigate ownership of property
       believed stolen"

                                                Exam Outline Page 5
► Trespass to Land

         One is subject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of
         whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected interest of
         the other, if he intentionally
           (a) enters land in the possession of the other, or causes a thing
                or a third person to do so, or
           (b) remains on the land, or
           (c) fails to remove from the land a thing which he is under a
                duty to remove.

► Elements of Trespass to Land:                                                  Hawke    Truck driver caused to go into private
                                                                                   v      property due to 3rd party running a red
            1) Intent (to enter)                                                 Maus     light, striking his truck, causing him to lose
                                                                                          control and enter the property damaging 3
            2) Entry (on land)                                                Truck Maple maple trees.
                                                                                 Trees           Truck driver had no intent to enter
            3) Land of another                                                                    and did not voluntarily enter.
                                                                                                 Testimony of the accident was not
            4) w/o consent or privilege                                                           permitted in TC
                                                                                                 ∏ attorneys argue they only had to
            5) or cause another/object to enter onto land of another w/o                          prove he was there without
         permission                                                                               permission and damaged the property
                                                                                          Holding: Δ was not liable so land as he had
            mistake = trespass                                                           done no voluntary act, as where he was
                       A decided to walk across a field to get to a creek,                carried onto ∏'s land by others against his
                       unknowingly, she walks across an area belonging to                 will
                       B which has no trespassing signs up only a few feet       City of  • ∏ sued over low flying, noise, etc.
                       away (A is trespassing because she intended to walk      Newark           ○ No proof of altitude of planes
                       through field)                                               v            ○ As described by the USCA
                                                                                Eastern             navigable airspace included not
            negligence ≠ trespass                                              Airlines            only the space above the minimum
                       A, a pilot, loses control of the aircraft, and the
                                                                                                    altitude of 1,000 feet prescribed by
                       aircraft lands on B’s property. This is not trespass to Air Space
                                                                                                    the regulation but also below the
                                                                                                    fixed altitude and apart from
                                                                                                    immediate reaches above land -
            Air space only within immediate reach of land
                                                                                                 ○ basically in looking at the formula,
                  (1) The plane enters into the immediate reaches of the
                                                                                                    take the HIGHEST obstacle in the
                       airspace (below federally-prescribed minimum flight
                                                                                                    town or area (within a horizontal
                       altitudes); and
                                                                                                    radius of 2,000 feet) and the plane
                  (2) The flight substantially interferes with person's use
                                                                                                    must fly 1,000 feet above that
                       and enjoyment of his land (e.g., by causing undue
                                                                                            Holding: airspace, apart from immediate
                       noise, vibration, and pollution).
                  (3) Rights of airspace are based on use & function.                       reaches above land, is part of public
            Particles and gases caused to enter w/o permission
             (considered objects)
                    If a person knowingly causes objects, including
                    particles or gases, to enter another's property, most
                    courts consider this trespass.

            Trespass requires some sort of damage, but not always.

               Visibility: If the substance is invisible, but it accumulates,
               it can be trespass (air pollution).

            Nuisance: Something that interferes with the enjoyment of
             the land. Requires a balancing of factors between the harms
             & benefits of that which is creating the nuisance.
                    Trespass to land is about possession and nuisance is
                    about use.

                                               Exam Outline Page 6
► Trespass to Chattel
       One who commits a trespass to a chattel is subject to liability to
       the possessor of the chattel if, but only if,

                   (a) he dispossesses the other of the chattel,
                   (b) the chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality, or
                   (c) the possessor is deprived of the use of the chattel for
                       a substantial time,
                   (d) bodily harm is caused to the possessor, or harm is
                       caused to some person or thing in which the
                       possessor has a legally protected interest

                        D takes P’s car for a 40-minute “joy ride,” and
                        returns it with a flat tire = harmed. (D has committed
                        a trespass to chattel.)

                                                      CompuServe      Defendant's intrusions into commercial online computer
                                                          v           service's computer systems, through the sending of
► Elements of Trespass to Chattel:                      Cyber         unsolicited electronic mail (e-mail) advertisements, was
                                                      Promotions      actionable under trespass to chattel definition pertaining to
             1) Intent (to dispossess)                                the intrusion that causes harm to something in which
                                                      SPAMMER         possessor has legally protected interest.
             2) Dispossess (right or control)
                                                                      The defendant's intentional use of service's proprietary
             3) Chattel (of another)                                  computer equipment was actionable trespass to chattels for
                                                                      which First Amendment provided no defense, due to the
             4) w/o consent or privilege                              harm caused to the service's business reputation and goodwill
                                                                      with subscribers.
             5) impaired chattel (devalued, damaged, reduced quality)

             6) barring access or use to chattel

             7) intermeddling with chattel in possession of another

       Trespass to chattel must have actual damage to the property,
        significant deprivation of use or dispossession.

       Transferred intent can apply to trespass to chattel but not to

       Trespass to chattel is : the intentional interference with the right of
        possession of personal property of another. The defendant’s
        interference must result in damage to the chattel, deprive the
        possessor if its use for a substantial period of time, or dispossess
        the chattel from the victim.

                 But if the damage or dispossession or deprivation is serious
                 enough, the defendant should be forced to replace the
                 property and then plaintiff would instead sue for conversion

                        D steals P’s car, then seriously (though not
                        irreparably) damages it in a collision. D is liable for
                        conversion, and will be required to pay P the full
                        value of the car (though D gets to keep the car).

                                                   Exam Outline Page 7
► Elements of Conversion:
                                                         Wiseman            imposter called for truck to be towed, was towed and
     1) Intent (to dispossess)                              v               then stolen, towing co. liable for conversion
     2) Exercise dominion or control (over)                                 Holding:
                                                     TOW TRUCK              Since Δ acted as if he were the owner of the chattel,
     3) Chattel (of another)                                                then it is just that he purchase it
     4) w/o consent or privilege

     5) SERIOUSLY interference with rights of the other (cause)

     6) Requiring payment of full value (other's chattel)

            Factors of seriousness:
               (1) the extent and duration of the actor’s exercise of
                   dominion or control
               (2) the actor’s intent to assert a right in fact
                   inconsistent with the other’s right of control
               (3) the actor’s good faith
               (4) the extent and duration of the resulting
                   interference with the other’s right of control
               (5) the harm done to the chattel, condition, quality or
               (6) the inconvenience and expense caused to the other
                                                                                    Distinguished from trespass to chattels:
                                                                                   Courts consider several factors in
         Conversion is an intentional tort, but all that is required is that D      determining whether D’s interference with
         have intended to take possession of the property. Mistake as to            P’s possessory rights is severe enough to be
         ownership will not be a defense.                                           conversion, or just trespass to chattels.
                 D buys an old painting from an art dealer, and reasonably
                believes that the art dealer has good title. In fact, the          Factors include:
                painting was stolen from P years before. D keeps the                  1.) Duration of D’s dominion over the
                painting in his house for 10 years. D is liable for                       property.
                conversion, notwithstanding his honest mistake about title.           2.) D’s good or bad faith.
                                                                                      3.) The harm done to the property.
                                                                                      4.) The inconvenience caused to P.
     —   There are different ways in which conversion may be committed:

           1.) Acquiring possession: D takes possession of the property
               from P.                                                             CONVERSION IS NOT
                      Bona fide purchaser: A bona fide purchaser of                 TRANSFERRABLE
                      stolen goods is still a converter, even if there was no
                      way for him to know they were stolen.                        Conversion is an intentional interference with a
           2.) Transfer to third party: D can also commit conversion by             person's possession or ownership of property
               transferring a chattel to one who is not entitled to it.             so substantial that the possessor should be
                      D, a messenger service, delivers a package to the             required to pay the property’s full value.
                      wrong person, X. X absconds with the goods. D has
                      committed conversion, even though D did not end up              if the defendant intended to steal the personal
                      with possession of the goods.                                   property of another, that intent alone is
                                                                                      sufficient to override the other factors and
           3.) Withholding good: D may commit conversion by refusing
                                                                                      conversion is established.
               to return good to their owner.
                                                                                              if A steals a coat and then within
                       a parking garage, refuses to give P back her car for a
                                                                                              seconds turn around and take it back to
                      day.) The essence of the conversion claim is that the
                                                                                              its owner, A is still liable for the tort of
                      defendant has exercised dominion over the goods.
                      There is generally no liability for conversion until the
                      plaintiff has demanded return of the chattel and has         Purchasing stolen property, even if I didn’t
                      been refused.                                                 know that it was stolen, is considered to be
           4.) Destruction: Conversion may occur if D destroys or                   conversion.
               fundamentally alters the goods.

      If something is taken away and returned, without the use or
       contemplation of the owner, then it is not conversion.

                                               Exam Outline Page 8
► Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

      1. One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or
         recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to
         liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other
         results from it, for such bodily harm.

      2. Where such conduct is directed at a third person, the actor is
         subject to liability if he intentionally or recklessly causes severe
         emotional distress
           (a) to a member of such person's immediate family who is
                present at the time, whether or not such distress results in
                bodily harm, or
           (b) to any other person who is present at the time, if such
                                                            State     Δ threatens that if ∏, a garbage collector, does not pay over part of his
                distress results in bodily harm.
                                                          Rubbish garbage collection proceeds to Δ and his henchmen, Δ will severely
                                                              v       beat ∏ (since Δ's conduct is extreme & outrageous, since he has
                                                          Siliznoff intended to cause ∏ distress (and did), Δ is liable for infliction of
                                                                      mental distress)

► Elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:                            Blakeley     Δ commits suicide by slitting his throat
                                                                                          v         in ∏ kitchen. Δ, or his estate, is liable
      1) Intent (to inflict)                                                           Shortal's    for IIED because although Δ didn't
           (a) Δ desires to cause emotional distress                                     Est        desire to cause distress to ∏, or even
           (b) Δ KWSC that ∏ will suffer emotional distress                                         KWSC distress would be caused, he
           (c) Δ recklessly disregards the high probability that emotional                          recklessly disregarded the high risk that
               distress will occur                                                                  distress would occur
                                                                                      Wilkinson Δ, as a joke, tells ∏ that her husband has
      2) Infliction (by EXTREME & OUTRAGEOUS conduct)
                                                                                          v     been badly injured in an accident and is
           — Δ conducts has to be "beyond all possible bounds of
                                                                                      Downton lying in the hospital with broken legs.
                                                                                                (conduct is sufficiently outrageous to
      3) Severe emotional distress (of another)
           — Must suffer SEVERE emotional distress, severe enough to                    GTE v       Employees experienced a variety of
               seek medical aid, even if it is not required to show the                 Bruce       emotional problems at the hand of their
               distress resulted in bodily harm.                                                    manager's abusive verbal and physical
                                                                                                    behavior, they each sought medical
      4) Proximately causing severe distress                                                        treatment, medication, and were reported
           — The EXTREME and OUTRAGEOUS conduct was the                                             suffering from post-traumatic stress
               cause of the SEVERE emotional distress                                               disorder. (conduct deemed severe)
                                                                                      **special As in GTE Southwest v. Bruce, there
      5) w/o consent or privilege                                                    contexts** may be special contexts where, because
                                                                                                of the relationship between the ∏ and Δ,
                                                                                                special liability rules are warranted. An
                                                                                                employer certainly has much leeway in
       The intentional or reckless infliction, by extreme and outrageous,                      its chosen methods of supervising and
        conduct of severe emotional or mental distress, even in the                             disciplining employees, but not to as it is
        absence of harm.                                                                        where as so extreme and outrageous to
                                                                                                cause IIED
       Courts will look at the vulnerability of plaintiff and the
        relationship between plaintiff and defendant in determining the                  Bill       Common fact pattern a person may be
        nature of defendant’s conduct.                                               Collectors     liable for IIED is from bill collectors.
                                                                                     Eckenrode      Bill collector's conduct can and often
       One can be liable to a third party for IIED.                                  v Life of     will be sufficiently extreme and
         — Most courts require that the third party is a close relative to            America       outrageous . (abusive calls at night, or
              the original victim.                                                     Ins. Co      denouncing ∏ to neighbors or work is a
         — The third party must be present when the tort is committed                               "deadbeat") It is no defense that the
              against the original victim.                                                          person really owed money. (Eckenrode
         — Defendant must know the third party relative is present.                                 v Life of America Ins. Co -- refusal and
                      A beats up B’s father and A knows that B is                                   bullying to ∏ in ordered to pay less
                     watching. (A can be responsible for damages per an                             amount of policy)
                     IIED claim if B suffers severe emotional distress.)

                                                 Exam Outline Page 9

To top