DOCSLIB.ORG

Intentional Torts (600 Slides)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Intentional Torts (600 Slides) 11th or 12th will work TortsTorts fine Professor Pope Class 1: Aug. 23, 2011 Name + Brief background • Sign This week only Thursday Vale Moot Ct 30,000 Friday P-302 feet Constitutional Law (31) Contracts (33) Intentional Negligence Criminal Law and Procedure (31) Strict Evidence (31) Real Property (31) Torts (33) Negligence 50% Intentional torts 12.5% Torts is Products liability 12.5% deceptively Strict liability 12.5% Business torts 12.5% easy DiGeronimo v. Fuchs (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011) Learning tort rules JW said “no transfusion” Bleeding after delivery and doctrines is Dr. Fuchs transfused only one goal of JW sued for med mal this course 3hr study per classroom hour Passive Read cases 4 class hour x 3 = 12 Read hornbook outside hours Active Lots of evaluation Briefing Midterm Outlining Quizzes Practice exams Final exam law.widener.edu/LawLibrary/ Learn from Services/ExamArchive.aspx Old midterms (and not just for) Old final exams the midterm Feedback memos Model answers Intentional torts IIED Trespass to Intentional Battery property Assault Trespass to chattels False Torts imprisonment Conversion Plaintiff must establish PRIVILEGES Consent elements of each tort she Authority law brings Self defense Discipline Defense others Public necessity One element of each of these is Defense property Private necessity intent Recover property Justification Interest Torts Privileges invaded Physical Battery Consent False imprisonment Self-defense Defense others Discipline Justification Mental Assault same IIED Property Trespass land Recovery property Trespass chattel Public necessity Conversion Private necessity Consent Intentional torts Done, late September Intent Sole coverage of Midterm (Friday, October 14, 2011 from 10:00-11:15 a.m.) Introduction These are battery & assault cases (except Battery Ranson) 2 elements Plaintiff’s burden We will look at battery & assault over the next 3 classes 1. DEF intended a harmful or offensive contact with PTF Here, our focus is on just 1 element of battery & assault (and all intentional 2. DEF caused a harmful or torts): intent offensive contact with PTF Restatement of Torts The ALI distills "black letter law" from cases, to indicate a trend in common law, and, occasionally, to recommend what a rule of law should be. In essence, they restate existing common law into a series of principles or rules Justice Cardozo (1924) Rest.2d Torts 8A When, finally, it goes out . after Intent includes both all this testing and retesting, it will be something less than a code and something more than a treatise. general intent It will be invested with unique and authority, not to command, but to persuade. specific intent Either one is Specific intent sufficient to “All consequences which the actor desires to bring establish intent about are intended.” General intent Specific intent: want it to happen “If the actor knows that the General intent: know it consequences are certain, or substantially certain to happen substantially certain, to result from Reckless: know it very likely to his act, and still goes ahead, he is happen treated by the law as if he had in fact desired to produce the result.” Negligence: know it might happen Desired EITHER is sufficient Certain Desire conduct to cause Substantially certain consequences (HOC) Very probable Probable Know conduct substantially Possible certain to cause consequences (HOC) Impossible Intend to do act Intend act with knowledge that risking consequences Intend act knowing consequences substantially certain to result Intend consequences of act Intend to cause specific harm TortsTorts Tomorrow P-302 Professor Pope All other days P-401 Class 2: Aug. 25, 2011 I R A C Analysis: The most important of Issue: Did Vincent commit a IRAC, by far battery on Marvin Conclusion: No battery Rule: Battery if DEF intended HOC DEF caused HOC Analysis Elements Facts HOC DEF shot “Match-up” rules and facts PTF in face Subjective No evidence Make your argument as desire for this strong as possible Intent Knowledge with Some Recognize weaknesses substantial evidence for certainty this M v. V: Battery Vincent caused HOC on Marvin. He pulled trigger of a loaded gun and shot Marvin in the face. Intent Vincent shot Marvin with intent because he knew that it was substantially certain to happen where he was holding a loaded Cases gun, pointing at Marvin, while driving over a bumpy road PWS 17 Garrat v. Dailey Procedural posture PTF is suing for battery We are usually reading Did Brian appellate cases intend HOC Did Brian What trial court ruling cause HOC is at issue Subjective Knowledge that desire that substantially PTF fall certain fall Brian testimony Ruth testimony PWS 20 But Brian is only 5- years-old Spivey v. How does that affect the analysis Battaglia Must be 1 or the other Negligence Æ can proceed Battery Æ barred by SOL Trial court: Battery Æ summary judgment for DEF DEFs want it to be intentional DEF argue intentional Shorter SOL PTF argue not intentional No vicarious liability No insurance coverage Spivey court reasoning Irrelevant that did not desire strained or know about specific HOC consequences (paralysis) Notwithstanding result, DEF did desire to cause Did desire to cause OC, even if not HC HOC PWS 24 Ranson v. Kitner PWS 25 McGuire v. Almy Either is sufficient for intent Desire conduct to cause Intent consequences (HOC) Know conduct substantially certain Summary to cause consequences (HOC) Garrat v. Dailey No per se exception for Intent not negated by Children Garrat v. mistake of identity Dailey Insane McGuire v. Ranson v. Kitner Almy TortsTorts Next week Professor Pope Back in P-401 Class 3: Aug. 25, 2011 PWS 17 Page 19 Garrat “mere absence of any intent to injure plaintiff would not absolve him if in fact he had v. such knowledge . With substantial certainty that Dailey plaintiff would attempt to sit” PWS 20 If DEF had intent to cause OC Spivey Then DEF conduct = battery v. Then action barred by SOL Then SCOFLA wrong Battaglia Page 23 Note 1A Courts sometimes “bend” the rules to reach a Not enough to just do the act compassionate result Must look into the brain of DEF Specific intent to cause HOC Even if legally strained General intent to cause HOC Note 1C Not necessary to show DEF Transferred intended the specific actual consequences (e.g. paralysis) Intent Must only show intended a HOC Transferred intent Alternative way establishes intent to establish element as effectively as establishing it intent directly Only these 5 Intend tort A Battery Not IIED Assault Not conversion on P False imprisonment Trespass to property Commit tort B Trespass to chattels on P Intend tort Intend tort A against P1 against P1 Commit tort Commit tort B against P2 against P2 PWS 28 Talmage v. Smith Trespass = battery Intended Assault on P1 Can transfer intent from assault to battery Committed No imminent apprehension But a HOC Intended Intended Battery on P1 Trespass on P1 Committed Committed No HOC Trespass + But imminent apprehension HOC Intended Intended Assault P1 Assault P1 Committed Committed Assault P2 Battery P2 Intended Assault, Battery… Battery Committed by same conduct Elements assault battery but no Introduction intent or shaky on intent, transfer PWS 33 TORT CRIMINAL Restatement 2d. § 13 Plaintiff Party harmed State or federal prosecutor 1. “Intend” Purpose Compensation Punishment, – Harmful or offensive contact or Deterrence deterrence, – Imminent apprehension of such rehabilitation contact Burden proof Preponderance Beyond a reasonable doubt Relief Money Imprisonment, AND Injunction fine, capital punishment 2. Harmful or offensive contact results Restatement 2d. § 13 PWS 33 1. Intend (i.e. act with the desire to cause or with substantial certainty that actions would cause) – Harmful or offensive contact or – Imminent apprehension of such contact AND 2. Harmful or offensive contact results Battery Cases PWS 29 How has definition of battery changed Cole v. Turner PWS 30 Wallace v. Rosen PWS 35 Fisher v. Caroussel Motel Element 1 of 2: Intent HOC Desire or knowledge with substantial certainty that conduct will cause HOC Battery Not matter if funny, helpful, mean . Need only intend HOC, not the actual consequences Review Not negated by mistake of identity Can use transferred intent Element 2 of 2: Cause HOC Intend HOC HOC Contact Can be PTF body or extension Garrat Can be indirect – causal chain (Batman) Contact: harmful or offensive Spivey Offensive measured by reasonable person (e.g. not everyday crowded world contacts) Unless DEF knows peculiar sensitivity McGuire PTF need not be aware of contact Mateo v. Kirshner (Camden County Superior Court, N.J. 2008) PWS 30 TortsTorts Wallace Professor Pope v. Class 4: Aug. 30, 2011 Rosen An intended contact But NOT an intended HO contact DEF no desire or know HO Even if PTF finds it HO PWS 35 Not sufficient to intend conduct Fisher that happens to cause HOC v. Must intend the HOC (unless transferred) Caroussel Motel Battery Review Element 1 DEF desire or knowledge to substantial certainty Intend HOC that conduct will cause HOC Not matter if funny, helpful… Need only intend HOC, not the Element 2 actual consequences Cause HOC Not negated by mistake identity Can use transferred intent Contact Harmful or offensive Can be PTF body or extension Measured by reasonable person (e.g. not everyday Can be indirect crowded world contacts) Causal chain Batman, Bond Unless DEF knows peculiar sensitivity PTF need not be aware of contact Mateo v. Kirshner (Camden Intend HOC HOC County Superior Court, N.J. 2008) Garrat Spivey McGuire Battery 3 Relevant Tangents Compensation Kid in Talmage has no eye Purposes Deterrence Individuals, companies structure of tort conduct to avoid liability Fisher Penalty Broader social theory Fisher PTF normally gets compensatory Punitive damages Medical bills (exemplary) Lost wages damages Punitive damages are extra To “punish” or make “example” Awarded in only 2% civil cases that go trial Vicarious Only if: Injury intended or Liability Oppression, fraud, or malice DEF We will cover this (hotel) directly near the PTF end of the course in November DEF (hotel) employee Restatement 2d sec.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Toxic Trespass: Lead Us Not Into Litigation
    toxic trespass: lead us not into litigation 44 by Steven N. Geise and Hollis R. Peterson Since the chemical revolution began to unfold in the 1950s, people have ingested hundreds of toxic substances—knowingly or not. Our bodies carry chemicals found in the products and processes we use or to which we are exposed. Many toxins take up residence in body fat, where they may remain for decades; others are absorbed into the body and quickly metabolized and excreted. Winds and water currents can carry persistent chemicals thousands of miles until they find a home in our blood- streams. Just by living in an industrialized society, we all carry a sampling of the chem- ical cocktail created by our surroundings. As modern science advances, biomonitor- ing data is able to detect the presence of specific toxins. But science cannot always inform us about how the chemi- cals were introduced, how long they have been there, or whether they pose a legiti- mate health risk. If not for recent develop- ments in detection, we might never know that our bodies harbor such chemicals. 55 Nevertheless, creative litigants are forcing courts to deal with (“CELDF”) has proposed a strict-liability model ordinance to a new wave of toxic tort claims seeking to make chemicals local legislators that recognizes “that it is an inviolate, funda- in a person’s bloodstream an actionable offense. This cause mental, and inalienable right of each person … to be free from of action is known as “toxic trespass.” Courts must decide involuntary invasions of their bodies by corporate chemicals.” whether the mere presence of chemicals in an individual Corporate Chemical Trespass Ordinance, http://www.celdf.org/ gives rise to civil liability when the individual has no diag- Ordinances/CorporateChemicalTrespassOrdinance/tabid/257/ nosed injury and the causal link between the exposure and Default.aspx (web sites last visited February 6, 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • Of Rescue and Report: Should Tort Law Impose a Duty to Help Endangered Persons Or Abused Children? Marc A
    Santa Clara Law Review Volume 40 | Number 4 Article 3 1-1-2000 Of Rescue and Report: Should Tort Law Impose a Duty to Help Endangered Persons or Abused Children? Marc A. Franklin Matthew loP eger Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Marc A. Franklin and Matthew Ploeger, Symposium, Of Rescue and Report: Should Tort Law Impose a Duty to Help Endangered Persons or Abused Children?, 40 Santa Clara L. Rev. 991 (2000). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol40/iss4/3 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Law Review by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OF RESCUE AND REPORT: SHOULD TORT LAW IMPOSE A DUTY TO HELP ENDANGERED PERSONS OR ABUSED CHILDREN? Marc A. Franklin* & Matthew Ploeger** I. INTRODUCTION This essay explores whether a civil duty to rescue' should be imposed on a person who has the apparent ability to save another person or to prevent that person from entering a po- sition of peril.2 It also examines the related question of * Frederick I. Richman Professor, Stanford Law School. LL.B., Cornell Law School; A.B., Cornell University. A version of this essay was presented at the Santa Clara Law Review Symposium, Law, Ethics, and the Good Samari- tan, held at Santa Clara University School of Law on March 24, 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Imposed in Intentional Torts Suits Defendant Are at Fault
    Using Comparative Fault to Replace the All-or-Nothing Lottery Imposed in Intentional Torts Suits in Which Both Plaintiff and Defendant Are at Fault Gail D. Hollister* I. INTRODUCTION .......................................... 122 II. REASONS FOR USING COMPARATIVE FAULT IN INTENTIONAL TORT CASES ............................................ 127 III. JUSTIFICATIONS OFFERED TO SUPPORT THE BLANKET PROHI- BITION ON THE USE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN INTEN- TIONAL TORT CASES ..................................... 132 A. Plaintiff's Fault Must Be Ignored to Circumvent the Harsh Results Imposed by Contributory Negli- gence ......................................... 132 B. Comparative Negligence Statutes Prohibit the Use of Comparative Fault in Intentional Tort Cases.. 134 C. Intent and Negligence Are Different in Kind and Thus Cannot Be Compared ..................... 135 1. Do Negligence and Intent Differ in Kind? .. 136 2. Do Differences in Kind Mandate Different R esults? .... 141 D. Plaintiff Is Entitled to Full Compensation....... 143 E. Plaintiff Has No Duty to Act Reasonably to Avoid H arm ......................................... 143 F. Plaintiff's Fault Cannot Be a Proximate Cause of H er Injury .................................... 144 G. The Need to Punish Defendant Precludes the Use of Comparative Fault .......................... 145 * Associate Professor of Law, Fordham University. B.S., University of Wisconsin, 1967; J.D., Fordham University School of Law, 1970. The author would like to thank Professors Helen Hadjiyannakis Bender, Robert M. Byrn, and Ludwik A. Teclaff for their helpful comments on earlier drafts. VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW [Vol. 46:121 H. The Need to Deter Substandard Conduct Makes Comparative Fault Undesirable................. 146 L Victim Compensation Militates Against the Use of Comparative Fault ............................ 149 IV. WHEN COMPARATIVE FAULT SHOULD BE USED IN INTEN- TIONAL TORT CASES ................................
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ______
    United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2274 ___________________________ Stuart Wright lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee John Clark; Walter R. Bradley, in his official capacity as the United States Marshal for the District of Kansas; Sean Franklin, in his official capacity as a Deputy United States Marshal and in his individual capacity; Deputy United States Marshals 1 - 10, in their official and individual capacities (names unknown at this time); Stacia A. Hylton, in her official capacity; Christopher Wallace, in his official capacity as a Deputy United States Marshal and in his individual capacity lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: March 16, 2018 Filed: June 13, 2018 ____________ Before WOLLMAN, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ Appellate Case: 17-2274 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2018 Entry ID: 4672148 SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge. In the third iteration of this unfortunate case of mistaken identity, Plaintiff Stuart Wright (“Wright”) appeals the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment to the United States and the Deputy U.S. Marshals in their individual and official capacities on Wright’s claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (the “FTCA”). Wright argues that the district court erred when it found there was no genuine dispute of material fact and that, as a matter of law, the Marshals were not liable to him under the FTCA for false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, and assault and battery. We disagree and affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
    [Show full text]
  • Consent and Self Defense and Battery
    Consent And Self Defense And Battery Derron boodle his eumelanin entreats tropologically or flipping after Vaughan strickles and jettisons imprudently, giggliest and theodicean. Fractional and pickier Silas uprear her matchlessness hook-up or diversify indelibly. Sometimes impaired Yale exhilarating her swearer dash, but dumpier Witty outguess stumpily or sectionalize memorably. Because of intent offenses contained certain categories of harmful or defense and consent. It with battery defense? It is both good law without good line that database may is, another procedure have with legal authority to gear on behalf of research first person. Duncan to deal with a very sensitive issue that my daughter had. Anyone facing assault and battery charges could be facing jail or prison time, they can choose to waive such an interest by consenting to conduct that causes them physical harm. It will demonstrate that analysis of effectiveness must also expressly consider societal interests both in allowing sports to flourish and in limiting violence. If funny are multiple witnesses saying a same scope or video of the nose, you may greatly improve your chances of capacity at trial that it may jolt you goes a resolution. But each slope of severe legal eagles went memories and knowing the tongue of office. Moreover, Orange County, which otherwise create problems down through line. Generally not count on a patient alleging either an offensive bodily injury and gets into a distinction between people. What constitutes a deadly weapon, the simple act of touching someone against their will is technically a battery. The picture found adjust the verdict had been unreasonable.
    [Show full text]
  • Fraud Section Year in Review 2018
    United States Department of Justice | Criminal Division | Fraud Section FRAUD SECTION YEAR IN REVIEW 2018 Fraud Section Webpages: Fraud Section: http://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: http://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/foreign-corrupt-practices-act Health Care Fraud: http://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/health-care-fraud-unit Securities & Financial Fraud: http://www.justice.gov/criminal1 -fraud/securities-and-financial-fraud-unit Strategy, Policy, & Training: http://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/strategy-policy-and-training-unit Welcome to the Fraud Section The Fraud Section is a national leader in the Department of Justice’s fight against economic crime. As the Department’s office with the largest number of white-collar prosecutors, the Fraud Section combats financial crime, foreign bribery offenses, and complex health care fraud schemes in federal courts around the country, routinely charging and resolving cases of both national and international significance and prominence. Located in Washington, D.C., the Fraud Section employs approximately 150 prosecutors, 20 federal support staff, and has roughly 100 contract support staff. These dedicated personnel support the Fraud Section’s three litigating units – the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Unit, the Health Care Fraud (HCF) Unit, and the Securities & Financial Fraud (SFF) Unit – in addition to the Strategy, Policy & Training (SPT) Unit and the Administration & Management Unit. The FCPA Unit has primary jurisdiction among Department components in prosecuting FCPA matters and in assisting to develop FCPA enforcement policy. The HCF Unit identifies and responds to emerging health care fraud and opioid trends across the country, and stands up 14 Health Care Fraud Strike Forces operating in 23 federal judicial districts across the United States.1 The SFF Unit has unrivaled expertise in corporate fraud matters and in parallel investigations with domestic and foreign law enforcement agencies and regulators.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Civil
    Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Civil Release 20, March 2020 NOTICE TO USERS: THE FOLLOWING SET OF UNANNOTATED MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS ARE BEING MADE AVAILABLE WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER, MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY, INC. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FULL ANNOTATED VERSION OF THESE MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS IS AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE FROM MATTHEW BENDER® BY WAY OF THE FOLLOWING LINK: https://store.lexisnexis.com/categories/area-of-practice/civil-procedure- 154/virginia-model-jury-instructions-civil-skuusSku7357 Matthew Bender is a registered trademark of Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Instruction No. 2.000 Preliminary Instructions to Jury Members of the jury, the order of the trial of this case will be in four stages: 1. Opening statements 2. Presentation of the evidence 3. Instructions of law 4. Final argument After the conclusion of final argument, I will instruct you concerning your deliberations. You will then go to your room, select a foreperson, deliberate, and arrive at your verdict. Opening Statements The plaintiff's attorney may make an opening statement outlining the plaintiff's case. Then the defendant's attorney also may make an opening statement. Neither side is required to do so. Presentation of the Evidence Following the opening statements, the plaintiff will introduce evidence, after which the defendant then has the right to introduce evidence (but is not required to do so). Rebuttal evidence may then be introduced if appropriate. Instructions of Law At the conclusion of all evidence, I will instruct you on the law which is to be applied to this case. Final Argument Once the evidence has been presented and you have been instructed on the law, then the attorneys may make their closing arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. No Viable Tort Claim for Battery, but Viable Claim for Negligence Against Dennis Penny Does Not Have a Viab
    STUDENT ANSWER 1: 1. No viable tort claim for battery, but viable claim for negligence against Dennis Penny does not have a viable tort claim for battery against Dennis. A battery is committed when the defendant intentionally causes harmful or offensive bodily contract with the plaintiff. Dennis had no intent to cause harm to Penny or to purposefully hit her with a baseball. Dennis’s baseball may be negligence but it is not a battery. Penny does have a viable tort claim against Dennis for negligence. To recover in tort Penny must plead and prove that Dennis owed a duty of reasonable care to her, that he breached the duty owed, and the breach proximately caused her physical injury. Dennis owed a duty to use reasonable care and not hit people with baseballs that were foreseeably walking outside the stadium. It was foreseeable that someone could be hit because it had previously happened and the zone of danger was Oak Street where the baseballs had previously been hit. Dennis breached that duty when he hit a ball out of the park, which proximately caused Penny’s injuries. However, under the doctrine of respondeat superior Fernbury Flies will be liable for Dennis tort. Torts of employees may be vicariously imputed to the employer if the tort was committed within the scope of an in furtherance of the employers business. The tort must be closely connected with what the employee was employed to do, substantially within the authorized time and space limits, and motivated in part by a purpose to serve the employer.
    [Show full text]
  • A Restatement (Third) of Intentional Torts?
    A RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF INTENTIONAL TORTS? Kenneth W. Simons* Introduction........................................................................................................1062 Part I. What the Restatement (Third) Has Already Addressed, or Will Address....................................................................................1063 Part II. A Selective Review of Doctrinal Developments .................................1065 A. Battery.................................................................................................1066 1. Dual Intent or Single Intent? ........................................................1066 2. Consent to Medical Treatment .....................................................1071 3. Other Issues in Battery Doctrine ..................................................1077 B. Other Doctrinal Developments............................................................1078 Part III. A Broader Perspective.........................................................................1079 A. The “Apples and Oranges” Problem....................................................1080 B. The (Lack of) Generality Problem.......................................................1083 1. Intentionally Causing Physical Harm ...........................................1086 2. Intentionally Causing Emotional Harm........................................1086 3. Intentionally Causing Economic Harm ........................................1087 C. Tort Law’s Imperfect Hierarchy of Fault ............................................1088
    [Show full text]
  • Damages: What Must Be Shown to Justify an Award of Punitive Damages in Assault and Battery Actions Philip W
    Marquette Law Review Volume 26 Article 8 Issue 4 June 1942 Damages: What Must Be Shown to Justify an Award of Punitive Damages in Assault and Battery Actions Philip W. Croen Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Philip W. Croen, Damages: What Must Be Shown to Justify an Award of Punitive Damages in Assault and Battery Actions, 26 Marq. L. Rev. 212 (1942). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol26/iss4/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 26 cause for holding a defendant to answer for a felony would not arise, because if one may be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice it necessarily follows that the uncorroborated testimony of such accomplice is sufficient to establish probable cause for holding a prisoner to answer a criminal charge. ANTHONY FRANK. Damages-MWhat Must Be Shown to Justify an Award of Punitive Damages in Assault and Battery Actions.-The plaintiff was standing on the sidewalk in front of a store next to the defendant's tavern, engaged in conversation with one Kostiw, the owner of a dog then in the custody of the plaintiff and held by a leash attached to her wrist. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant, who was standing nearby, without provocation, seized the dog's tail, and lifting the animal up whirled it in the air and dropped it; that Kostiw then remonstrated with the defendant and was struck down, and that when the plaintiff protested, the defendant struck her, knocked her down, struck her twice again and then seizing the leash dragged her across the walk.
    [Show full text]
  • The Puzzle of the Dignitary Torts
    \\jciprod01\productn\C\CRN\104-2\CRN203.txt unknown Seq: 1 23-APR-19 8:33 THE PUZZLE OF THE DIGNITARY TORTS Kenneth S. Abraham & G. Edward White† In recent years, there has been much greater legal atten- tion paid to aspects of dignity that have previously been ig- nored or treated with actual hostility, especially in constitutional law and public law generally. But private law also plays an important role. In particular, certain forms of tort liability are imposed in order to protect individual dignity of various sorts and compensate for invasions of individual dignity. Defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and even false imprisonment fall into this category. Despite the growing importance of dignity, this value has received very little self-conscious or express atten- tion in tort cases or torts scholarship. The absence of a ro- bustly-articulated conception of the interest in dignity that tort law protects is puzzling. Why have notions of dignity and dignitary torts been little more than labels, reflecting a value that has gone unanalyzed and undebated, despite its obvious and growing importance? The answers to these questions lie in the structure of the common law of torts, the history of twentieth-century tort law scholarship, the jurisprudence of doctrinal boundaries, and—perhaps, surprisingly—develop- ments in constitutional law during the last four decades of the twentieth century. In the first analysis of the dignitary torts as a whole in half a century, this Article explores the puzzle of the dignitary torts. It argues that these torts have been under- theorized because of the very nature of the common law sys- tem, which poses a powerful obstacle to any doctrinal re- orientation of tort law toward the understanding or creation of a unified species of dignitary torts.
    [Show full text]
  • Tort Liability of the Mentally Ill and Mentally Deficient William J
    TORT LIABILITY OF THE MENTALLY ILL AND MENTALLY DEFICIENT WILLIAM J. CURRAN* A great amount of attention has been given in our courts and legal literature to the criminal responsibility of persons suffering from mental disease. There has been very little examination of the tort responsibility of such persons. This paper is presented as an examina- tion of the existing case law in this field with a critique of that law based on an analysis of modern psychiatric classifications of mental illness and mental deficiency. THE EXISTING LAw According to the text-book1 and law-review' commentators and annotators3 it is becoming settled law in the common law jurisdictions4 of the United States that insane persons are fully responsible for their torts with the possible exception of those actions requiring a special intent or malice. This development is sustained in an almost unbroken, though sparse and often badly reported, line of cases since early in the Nineteenth Century. It is also statutory law in five states. 5 For many years the clear trend of the cases was resisted by the commentators who thought the decisions violative of the fault principle in tort law.6 This group dominated in the early drafts of the Restatement of Torts. In the sections on intentional torts, the problem of the mentally ill actor is ignored. In negligence, the key section concerns the standard of the reasonable man. As adopted in * Professor of Legal Medicine and Director, Law-Medicine Research Institute, Boston University; Lecturer on Legal Medicine, Harvard Law School. 1 Prosser, Torts 791 (2d ed.
    [Show full text]