DOCSLIB.ORG

1. No Viable Tort Claim for Battery, but Viable Claim for Negligence Against Dennis Penny Does Not Have a Viab

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Here, Dennis was playing baseball on behalf of the Fernbury flies and was employed to play the sport. He was authorized to play in the game and the objective was to win and serve the baseball team. 2. Penny does have a viable tort claim against the Fernbury Flies The Fernbury Flies owned the baseball stadium and owed a duty of care to avoid endangering others on a public way or on adjoining property. The baseball games subjected pedestrians to an unreasonable risk of harm of being struck by a baseball. It was foreseeable that a baseball could be hit over the fence that surrounded the Park because there were prior incidences of such injuries. Although though Fernbury had a 10-foot fence surrounding the park that was similar in type and identical in height to other stadiums this fact is not dispositive especially if there is way to make the premises safer at a modest cost. Penny also has a tort claim of negligence against Fernbury. Penny must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Fernbury owed a duty to exercise reasonable care to the plaintiff and breached that duty, that she suffered a physical injury to person, and her injury was proximately caused by Fernbury’s breach of duty. Fernbury owed a duty of reasonable care to those who foreseeably could be injured by their conduct and were within the zone of danger. Fernbury owed a duty of reasonable care to prevent pedestrians walking on Oak Street from being struck with baseballs coming from inside their stadium. It was foreseeable that pedestrians such as Penny could be struck and injured by a baseball because there is evidence that baseballs have been hit over the fence before. Fernbury’s conduct of hosting baseball games for the public and having their players engage in hitting baseballs proximately caused Penny’s injury. Although Fernbury Flies did not physically hit the baseball that injured Penny the team is liable for its players conduct under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Penny must show that the tort was committed within the scope of and in furtherance of the employers business. Fernbury is liable for Penny’s physical injuries and for any preexisting conditions that may have been aggravated by their conduct under the Egg-Shell plaintiff rule. Penny suffered the physical injury of a concussion and due to an adverse reaction to medication suffered neurological damage. Fernbury is liable for the proximate injury they caused, which is Penny’s concussion. Original tortfeasors are also liable for all subsequent foreseeable injuries arising from the initial tort. Here, there are successive proximate causes to Penny’s injury (1) being struck in the head by a ball and (2) having an adverse reaction to the medication. Subsequent medical malpractice is foreseeable and was proximately caused by Fernbury’s original breach of duty. Penny has a viable tort claim to recover damages for her concussion and the neurological damage she suffered. STUDENT ANSWER 2: 1. Penny v. Dennis The first issue is whether Penny has a viable Battery or Tort claim against Dennis Battery: In order for a battery claim to be viable the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant intended to cause contact and the contact was harmful or offensive in nature, and that contact did in fact occur. Here, although Penny was contacted by the ball, it is unlikely that Dennis intended to cause any contact with Penny. Although Dennis intended the bat to hit the ball in order for him to play baseball, he did not intent a harmful or offensive touching to occur on Penny. Although the injury that arose was harmful, because the intent element cannot be met, Penny does not have a viable battery claim. Negligence: In order to bring a valid negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to act as a reasonably prudent person, that the defendant breached that duty and that such breach actually and proximately caused the plaintiff an physical injury (injury to her person or property). The duty one has is to act as a reasonably prudent person to those foreseeable people within the zone of danger. A person does not have a duty that extends to all people because that would create endless liability. Instead, the court, as explained in Palsgraf has limited a defendants duty to those who are within the zone of danger, or those who could reasonably and foreseeably be impacted by the defendants actions. Although additional duties may sometimes arise, the general rule is that one must act reasonably prudent. This test is an objective test and a question of law for the judge to decide. A breach occurs when the defendant does not act in accordance with their requisite duty. Additionally, the plaintiff must show actual cause: that “but for” the defendants breach the plaintiff would not have been injured. And proximate cause, which is whether the defendants breach foreseeably would cause injury to the plaintiff. Although injury to the plaintiff must be foreseeable, the extent of that injury need not be foreseeable and a defendant takes his plaintiff as she finds him. Additionally, if the defendant is found to be negligent, he may also be liable for any additional injuries that occur to the plaintiff due to his acts, such as medical malpractice or negligence that occurred within a rescue of the plaintiff. Here, Dennis had a duty, as a baseball player to hit the ball when it was thrown to him, and to act reasonably in doing so. It is unlikely that he breached this duty, because he did exactly what he was hired to do, which was to hit a baseball. Additionally, although it may be foreseeable that people outside of the baseball park may be hit by a baseball, there is a question of whether Penny was outside of the zone of danger. People in the park who are hit by a flying ball are foreseeably within the zone of danger because most balls are hit within the park. Although Penny may be able to argue that because balls have been hit over the park fence onto Oak Street that it was foreseeable that this could happen again and that Dennis is liable for her injury. However, it still does not seem that Dennis breached his duty of care. Therefore, even though Penny was injured, and her injury was the but for cause of Dennis’s action, and that it is foreseeable that someone may be hit by the ball, Dennis likely did not breach any duty. 2. Penny v. Fernbury Flies Battery: An employer may be held vicariously liable for the torts of their employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Under this doctrine, an employer is liable for any injury caused by their employees negligence that occurs out of the scope of their employment. Although intentional torts are usually not included, if an employee commits an intentional tort that is furthering an interest of the employer the employer may nevertheless be held liable. Here, although the doctrine of respondeat superior would be applicable, because Dennis did not have the requisite intent to commit a battery, the Fernbury flies cannot be vicariously liable for the injuries caused by Dennis. Negligence: As explained above, in order for a negligence claim to be present all elements must be present. Additionally, certain duties arise on landowners based on those who enter their land. Generally, a landowner has no duty to trespassers, but a heightened duty of care to licensees and Invitees who are on their land. Landowners however do no have a duty to people off their land that may be injured by items on the land. That being said. The duty the park had is likely different then the duty Dennis. The park was on notice that balls had been leaving the park and even though the custom was to use a 10 foot high fence, they were likely negligent in not using a different type of fence such as the ones used in japan.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Section 7: Criminal Offense, Criminal Responsibility, and Commission of a Criminal Offense
    63 Section 7: Criminal Offense, Criminal Responsibility, and Commission of a Criminal Offense Article 15: Criminal Offense A criminal offense is an unlawful act: (a) that is prescribed as a criminal offense by law; (b) whose characteristics are specified by law; and (c) for which a penalty is prescribed by law. Commentary This provision reiterates some of the aspects of the principle of legality and others relating to the purposes and limits of criminal legislation. Reference should be made to Article 2 (“Purpose and Limits of Criminal Legislation”) and Article 3 (“Principle of Legality”) and their accompanying commentaries. Article 16: Criminal Responsibility A person who commits a criminal offense is criminally responsible if: (a) he or she commits a criminal offense, as defined under Article 15, with intention, recklessness, or negligence as defined in Article 18; IOP573A_ModelCodes_Part1.indd 63 6/25/07 10:13:18 AM 64 • General Part, Section (b) no lawful justification exists under Articles 20–22 of the MCC for the commission of the criminal offense; (c) there are no grounds excluding criminal responsibility for the commission of the criminal offense under Articles 2–26 of the MCC; and (d) there are no other statutorily defined grounds excluding criminal responsibility. Commentary When a person is found criminally responsible for the commission of a criminal offense, he or she can be convicted of this offense, and a penalty or penalties may be imposed upon him or her as provided for in the MCC. Article 16 lays down the elements required for a finding of criminal responsibility against a person.
    [Show full text]
  • Anomalies in Intentional Tort Law
    Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy Volume 1 Issue 2 Winter 2005 Article 3 January 2005 Anomalies in Intentional Tort Law Alan Calnan Southwestern University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/tjlp Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Calnan, Alan (2005) "Anomalies in Intentional Tort Law," Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy: Vol. 1 : Iss. 2 , Article 3. Available at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/tjlp/vol1/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Volunteer, Open Access, Library Journals (VOL Journals), published in partnership with The University of Tennessee (UT) University Libraries. This article has been accepted for inclusion in Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy by an authorized editor. For more information, please visit https://trace.tennessee.edu/tjlp. Anomalies in Intentional Tort Law Cover Page Footnote Paul E. Treusch Professor of Law, Southwestern University School of Law. I would like to thank Southwestern University School of Law for supporting this project with a sabbatical leave and a summer research grant. This article is available in Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy: https://trace.tennessee.edu/tjlp/vol1/iss2/3 ANOMALIES IN INTENTIONAL TORT LAW Anomalies in Intentional Tort Law Alan Calnan* Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................................. 187 H. The Theoretical Paradigm of Tort Law ............................ 191 A. The Form and Function of the FaultMatrix B. Seeing Beyond the Matrix III. Unintentional and Unrecognized Intentional Torts .................. 207 A. UnintentionalIntentional Torts 1. Transferred Intent 2. Mistake B. UnrecognizedIntentional Torts 1. The Scienter Conundrum 2. The Restatement (Third)"Solution" IV.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • FTCA Handbook Is a Revision of the Material Originally Published in July 1979 and Updated Periodically Since
    JACS-Z 1 November 1999 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMS JUDGE ADVOCATES/CLAIMS ATTORNEYS SUBJECT: Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) Handbook 1. This edition of the FTCA Handbook is a revision of the material originally published in July 1979 and updated periodically since. The previous edition was last updated in September 1998. This edition contains significant cases through September 1999 pertaining to the filing and processing of administrative claims under the FTCA (Title 28, United States Code, Sections 2671-2680) and related claims statutes. 2. This Handbook provides case citations covering a myriad of issues. The citations are organized in a topical manner, paralleling the steps an attorney should take in analyzing a claim. Older citations have not been removed. Shepardizing is essential. 3. If any errors are noted, including the omission of relevant cases, please use the error sheet at the end of the Handbook to bring this to our attention. Users needing further information or clarification of this material should contact their Area Action Officer or Mr. Joseph H. Rouse, Deputy Chief, Tort Claims Division, DSN: 923-7009, extension 212; or commercial: (301) 677-7009, extension 212. JOHN H. NOLAN III Colonel, JA Commanding TABLE OF CONTENTS I. REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FILING A. Why is There a Requirement? 1. Effective Date of Requirement............................ 1 2. Administrative Filing Requirement Jurisdictional......... 1 3. Waiver of Administrative Filing Requirement.............. 1 4. Purposes of Requirement.................................. 2 5. Administrative Filing Location........................... 2 6. Not Necessary for Compulsory Counterclaim................ 2 7. Not Necessary for Third Party Practice................... 2 B. What Must be Filed? 1. Written Demand for Sum Certain..........................
    [Show full text]
  • Hostile Work Environment and the Objective Reason-Ableness Conundrum
    Boston College Law Review Volume 36 Article 2 Issue 2 Number 2 3-1-1995 Hostile Work Environment and the Objective Reason-Ableness Conundrum: Deriving a Workable Framework from Tort Law for Addressing Knowing Harassment of Hypersensitive Employees Frank S. Ravitch Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Labor and Employment Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Frank S. Ravitch, Hostile Work Environment and the Objective Reason-Ableness Conundrum: Deriving a Workable Framework from Tort Law for Addressing Knowing Harassment of Hypersensitive Employees, 36 B.C.L. Rev. 257 (1995), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ bclr/vol36/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND THE OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS CONUNDRUM: DERIVING A WORKABLE FRAMEWORK FROM TORT LAW FOR ADDRESSING KNOWING HARASSMENT OF HYPERSENSITIVE EMPLOYEESt FRANK S. RAVITCH* Ms. Smith works for a supervisor who does not believe women belong in the workplace. He wants to force her out, but based on the company's harassment policy, he knows he cannot subject her to con- duct that a reasonable person would find severe or pervasive, because that would be illegal discrimination, and his employer would likely take action against him. However, he also knows that she is particularly sensitive to loud noise. She cannot function around loud noise, and becomes extremely nervous.
    [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]
  • A Revolutionary Approach to the Eggshell Plaintiff Rule Steve Calandrillo University of Washington School of Law
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by UW Law Digital Commons (University of Washington) University of Washington School of Law UW Law Digital Commons Articles Faculty Publications 2013 Eggshell Economics: A Revolutionary Approach to the Eggshell Plaintiff Rule Steve Calandrillo University of Washington School of Law Dustin E. Buehler Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-articles Part of the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Steve Calandrillo and Dustin E. Buehler, Eggshell Economics: A Revolutionary Approach to the Eggshell Plaintiff Rule, 74 Ohio St. L.J. 375 (2013), https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-articles/130 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Eggshell Economics: A Revolutionary Approach to the Eggshell Plaintiff Rule STEVE P. CALANDRILLO* & DUSTIN E. BUEHLER† For more than a century, courts have universally applied the eggshell plaintiff rule, which holds tortfeasors liable for the full extent of the harm inflicted on vulnerable “eggshell” victims. Liability attaches even when the victim’s condition and the scope of her injuries were completely unforeseeable ex ante. This Article explores the implications of this rule by providing a pioneering economic analysis of eggshell liability. It argues that the eggshell plaintiff rule misaligns parties’ incentives in a socially undesirable way. The rule subjects injurers to unfair surprise, fails to incentivize socially optimal behavior when injurers have imperfect information about expected accident losses, and fails to account for risk aversion, moral hazard, and judgment-proof problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7 Tort Law and Product Liability Chapter Outline 1
    Chapter 7 Tort Law and Product Liability Chapter Outline 1. Introduction 2. The Basis of Tort Law 3. Intentional Torts 4. Negligence 5. Cyber Torts: Defamation Online 6. Strict Liability 7. Product Liability 8. Defenses to Product Liability 9. Tort Law and the Paralegal Chapter Objectives After completing this chapter, you will know: • What a tort is, the purpose of tort law, and the three basic categories of torts. • The four elements of negligence. • What is meant by strict liability and under what circumstances strict liability is applied. • The meaning of strict product liability and the underlying policy for imposing strict product liability. • What defenses can be raised in product liability actions. Chapter 7 Tort Law and Product Liability Chapter Outline I. INTRODUCTION A. Torts are wrongful actions. B. The word tort is French for “wrong.” II. THE BASIS OF TORT LAW A. Two notions serve as the basis of all torts. i. Wrongs ii. Compensation B. In a tort action, one person or group brings a personal-injury suit against another person or group to obtain compensation or other relief for the harm suffered. C. Tort suits involve “private” wrongs, distinguishable from criminal actions that involve “public” wrongs. D. The purpose of tort law is to provide remedies for the invasion of various interests. E. There are three broad classifications of torts. i. Intentional Torts ii. Negligence iii. Strict Liability F. The classification of a particular tort depends largely on how the tort occurs (intentionally or unintentionally) and the surrounding circumstances. Intentional Intentions An intentional tort requires only that the tortfeasor, the actor/wrongdoer, intended, or knew with substantial certainty, that certain consequences would result from the action.
    [Show full text]
  • Thou Shalt Take Thy Victim As Thou Findest Him: Religious Conviction As a Pre-Existing State Not Subject to the Avoidable Consequences Doctrine
    File: 5 Loomis.doc Created on: 12/14/06 4:44 PM Last Printed: 12/23/06 1:33 PM 2007] 473 THOU SHALT TAKE THY VICTIM AS THOU FINDEST HIM: RELIGIOUS CONVICTION AS A PRE-EXISTING STATE NOT SUBJECT TO THE AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES DOCTRINE Anne C. Loomis* INTRODUCTION As Gwendolyn Robbins’ seventy-year old father drove along a high- way in upstate New York, his car veered off the road at sixty-five miles per hour and turned over in a culvert on nearby farmland.1 After a long day of driving from New York City to Plattsburgh and back, he fell asleep at the wheel.2 Gwendolyn was a passenger in the car, and she suffered a severely damaged left hip and an injury to her right knee.3 Gwendolyn was faced with a choice: she could accept well-recognized and established surgical procedures, which would offer her the prospect of a good recovery and near-normal life; or, she could refuse these procedures and accept the inevi- table necrotic development in the bone structure of her injured limbs, which would ultimately lead to a wheelchair-bound life.4 For Gwendolyn, there was no question which option to take: the wheelchair-bound life. Gwendolyn was a devout Jehovah’s Witness, and she refused the surgical procedures because her religion prohibited blood transfusions, which the surgeries would require.5 When a defendant injures a plaintiff, tort law normally applies the “Avoidable Consequences Doctrine,” or the duty to mitigate damages. The plaintiff is expected to take reasonable steps to minimize her anticipated losses.
    [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]
  • I. A. Intellectual Approaches to Tort Law 1. Corrective Justice 2. Economic Approach/Deterrence Approach 3. Compensation Approac
    Torts, Sharkey Fall 2006, Dave Fillingame I. INTRODUCTION A. Intellectual Approaches to Tort Law 1. Corrective Justice 2. Economic Approach/Deterrence Approach 3. Compensation Approach B. Holmes: Two theories of common-law liability: 1. Criminalist (Negligence) 2. “A man acts at his own peril” (strict liability) 3. Judge People by an Objective not a Subjective Standard of Care C. Judge v. Jury in Torts II. INTENTIONAL TORTS A. Elements B. Physical Harms 1. Battery a. Eggshell Skull Rule (Vosburg v. Putney) b. Intent to Act v. Intent to Harm c. “Substantial Certainty” Test (Garratt v. Dailey) d. “Playing Piano” (White v. University of Idaho) e. “Transferred” Intent 2. Defenses to Battery: Consent a. Consent b. Consent: Implied License c. Consent to Illegal Acts 3. Defenses to Battery: Insanity 4. Defenses to Battery: Self-Defense and Defense of Others a. Can be used as a defense when innocent bystanders harmed b. Can be used in defense of third-parties c. Must be proportional force 5. Defenses to Battery: Necessity C. Trespass to Land 1. No Damage is Required, Unauthorized Entry on Land is Enough a. An unfounded claim of right does not make a willful entry innocent. b. Quarum Clausum Fregit 2. Use of Deadly Force in Protection of Property a. Posner: We Must Create Incentives to Protect Tulips and Peacocks. b. Use Reasonable Force: Katko v. Briney (Iowa 1971) 3. Defense of Privilege a. Privilege of Necessity b. “General Average Contribution” c. Conditional (Incomplete) Privilege Vincent v. Lake Erie (Minn. 1910) d. The privilege exists only so long as the necessity does.
    [Show full text]