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.