Lawyering Fundamentals Torts Cases
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Lawyering Fundamentals Torts Cases Reprinted with Permission from Thomson Reuters TABLE OF CONTENTS INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PERSON OR PROPERTY ...............................................17 INTENT .......................................................................................................................................................17 Garratt v. Dailey ...................................................................................................................................17 Spivey v. Battaglia .................................................................................................................................20 Ranson v. Kitner ....................................................................................................................................24 McGuire v. Almy ....................................................................................................................................25 Talmage v. Smith ...................................................................................................................................28 BATTERY ....................................................................................................................................................30 Cole v. Turner ........................................................................................................................................30 Wallace v. Rosen ...................................................................................................................................31 Restatement (Second) of Torts (Battery) ................................................................................................34 Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc. ...................................................................................................36 ASSAULT ....................................................................................................................................................37 I de S et. ux. v. W de S ...........................................................................................................................37 Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill ....................................................................................................38 FALSE IMPRISONMENT ...............................................................................................................................41 Big Town Nursing Home, Inc. v. Newman .............................................................................................41 Parvi v. City of Kingston .......................................................................................................................43 Hardy v. LaBelle’s Distributing Co. ......................................................................................................45 Enright v. Groves...................................................................................................................................47 Whittaker v. Sandford ............................................................................................................................49 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS .................................................................................51 State Rubbish Collectors Ass’n v. Siliznoff ............................................................................................51 Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida ..................................................................................................55 Harris v. Jones.......................................................................................................................................58 Taylor v. Vallelunga. .............................................................................................................................65 PRIVILEGES ..............................................................................................................................................92 CONSENT ....................................................................................................................................................92 O’Brien v. Cunard S.S. Co. ...................................................................................................................92 Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc. .....................................................................................................93 Mohr v. Williams ...................................................................................................................................95 De May v. Roberts. ..............................................................................................................................100 C A S E S A N D M A T E R I A L S PROSSER, WADE AND SCHWARTZ’S TORTS T W E L F T H E D I T I O N by VICTOR E. SCHWARTZ Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law Chairman, Public Policy Group, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P Washington, D.C. KATHRYN KELLY Professor of Law, The Catholic University of America DAVID F. PARTLETT Dean and Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law This publication was created to provide you with accurate and authoritative information concerning the subject matter covered; however, this publication was not necessarily prepared by persons licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional. Nothing contained herein is intended or written to be used for the purposes of 1) avoiding penalties imposed under the federal Internal Revenue Code, or 2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. a 1951, 1952, 1957, 1962, 1967, 1971, 1976, 1982, 1988, 1994, 2000 FOUNDATION PRESS a 2005 THOMSON REUTERS/FOUNDATION PRESS a 2010 By THOMSON REUTERS/FOUNDATION PRESS 1 New York Plaza, 34th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone Toll Free 1–877–888–1330 Fax (646) 424–5201 foundation–press.com Printed in the United States of America ISBN 978–1–59941–704–2 Mat #40856301 C H A P T E R II INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PERSON OR PROPERTY 1. INTENT Garratt v. Dailey Supreme Court of Washington, 1955. 46 Wash.2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091. HILL, JUSTICE. The liability of an infant for an alleged battery is presented to this court for the first time. Brian Dailey (age five years, nine months) was visiting with Naomi Garratt, an adult and a sister of the plaintiff, Ruth Garratt, likewise an adult, in the back yard of the plaintiff’s home, on July 16, 1951. It is plaintiff’s contention that she came out into the back yard to talk with Naomi and that, as she started to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair, Brian deliberately pulled it out from under her. The only one of the three present so testifying was Naomi Garratt. (Ruth Garratt, the plaintiff did not testify as to how or why she fell.) The trial court, unwilling to accept this testimony, adopted instead Brian Dailey’s version of what happened, and made the following findings: ‘‘III. * * * that while Naomi Garratt and Brian Dailey were in the back yard the plaintiff, Ruth Garratt, came out of her house into the back yard. Some time subsequent thereto defendant, Brian Dailey, picked up a lightly built wood and canvas lawn chair which was then and there located in the back yard of the above described premises, moved it sideways a few feet and seated himself therein, at which time he discovered the plaintiff, Ruth Garratt, about to sit down at the place where the lawn chair had formerly been, at which time he hurriedly got up from the chair and attempted to move it toward Ruth Garratt to aid her in sitting down in the chair; that due to the defendant’s small size and lack of dexterity he was unable to get the lawn chair under the plaintiff in time to prevent her from falling to the ground. That plaintiff fell to the ground and sustained a fracture of her hip, and other injuries and damages as hereinafter set forth. ‘‘IV. That the preponderance of the evidence in this case establishes that when the defendant, Brian Dailey moved the chair in question he did not have any wilful or unlawful purpose in doing so; that he did not have any intent to injure the plaintiff, or any intent to bring about any unautho- rized or offensive contact with her person or any objects appurtenant thereto; that the circumstances which immediately preceded the fall of the plaintiff established that the defendant, Brian Dailey, did not have purpose, 17 18 CHAPTER 2 INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PERSON OR PROPERTY intent or design to perform a prank or to effect an assault and battery upon the person of the plaintiff.’’ (Italics ours, for a purpose hereinafter indicat- ed.) It is conceded that Ruth Garratt’s fall resulted in a fractured hip and other painful and serious injuries. To obviate the necessity of a retrial in the event this court determines that she was entitled to a judgment against Brian Dailey, the amount of her damage was found to be $11,000. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing the action and asks for the entry of a judgment in that amount or a new trial. The authorities generally, but with certain notable exceptions, [c] state that when a minor has committed a tort with force he is liable to be proceeded against as any other