Chapter 6 1 Tort a civil wrong that is not a breach of contract 2 Laws split into the civil side and criminal side but we are only dealing with the civil side a The civil side is split into breach of contract and torts 3 Tort law provides for civil liabilities against people who commit torts a Have to prove case by preponderance of evidence b If you win you get compensatory damages they compensate you for the losses suffered i Can get damages for injuries suffered of medical expenses incurred as a result of physical injuries and emotional distress ii May be able to get punitive damages which are in addition to compensatory damages Two basic purposes of punitive damages 1 To punish defendant for bad behavior 2 Deterrence want to deter future bad behavior from the same defendant and other potential defendants who would maybe engage in the same kind of conduct 4 4 Kinds of wrongful conduct a Intentional conduct intent is the desire to cause certain consequences or substantial certainty that consequences will result from ones conduct 2 aspects of this i EX if you intentionally set off an explosion 10 yards from someone s house there are substantial certainty that consequences will result b Recklessness conduct A conscious indifference to a known and substantial risk of harm created by ones behavior i Ex Drunk driving result level of recklessness c Negligence a failure to use reasonable care with harm to another party incurring as a i EX If you run a stop sign and cause an accident sometimes it can rise to the ii Not always clear cut categories but they have different proof requirements and they have different damages that you get d Strict liability liability regardless of fault plaintiff doesn t have to prove that the defendant did anything wrong i Certain activities are regarded as ultra hazardous therefore they cant be conducted with 100 percent certainty And you can be liable even if you the defendant didn t do anything wrong This chapter deals with two types of intentional torts 5 Torts that involve interferences with personal rights 7 torts in category Test most on the 5th tort but all will be on test many of these torts could also constitute crimes but the criminal and tort definitions will be different a 1st Battery the intentional and harmful or offensive touching of somebody else without his or her consent has to be harmful or offensive i It s harmful if it produces bodily injury Doesn t have to be harmful ii Offensive touching deals with cross cultural differences of what s offensive In this country the court disregards cultural variations iii There are certain types of touching that everyone finds offensive and you can sue for that iv Transferred intent under this theory Person A swings at distance intending to hit person B but instead hits Person C Person C can sue person A for transferred intent This is the point of the Stoshak case v Touching does not require direct contact If you can poison them they can sue you for battery vi Consent is a defense to battery 1 EX S and M relationships 50 shades of grey vii Consent may be inferred from voluntary participation in an activity but only to as contacts that are the normal consequences of the activity 1 EX boxing when you go in the boxing ring you consent to being battered b 2nd Assault the intentional attempt or offer to cause harmful or offensive contact with another person that attempt or offer causes a reasonable apprehension of immediate battery in the other persons mind i Difference between battery and assault in battery there is actual contact in assault there doesn t have to be contact ii The key to assault is apprehension if you apprehend something you believe iii You reasonably believe your enemy will strike you even if he doesn t its something assault iv You don t need to be fearful apprehension isn t fear it s if you believe you will be struck v Apprehension has to be reasonable vi ALSO you have to reasonable apprehend that eminent contact will occur c 3rd Intentional infliction of emotional distress pg 183 on right conduct that is so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community 3 elements to it i Conduct has to be outrageous Durum Case is an example of outrageous conduct you can sue for this if the other two apply ii The resulting emotional distress must be severe iii Defendant must have intended to inflict the distress iv Roach Vs Stern is an example of intentional infliction of emotional distress d 4th False imprisonment intentional confinement of another person for an appreciable time without his or her consent i Appreciable time could be as short as a few minutes ii Confinement doesn t have to be physical barriers it could be a threat of physical force to them or someone Don t more or we will kill your wife iii The confinement has to be complete iv If you don t know you have a method of escape it is still false imprisonment 1 If you know there is a method of escape but there is a big risk that is still false imprisonment v If you consent to being confined e 5th Defamation HIGHLY TESTED protects the individuals interests in his or her reputation the unprivileged publication of false defamatory statements about someone else i Statements of opinion DO NOT quality as defamation it has to be a statement of fact Grey area of what s fact versus opinion ii Defamation has two branches Liable and slander 1 Liable refers to written or printed defamation includes radio or weather 2 Slander refers to oral defamation iii It matters which branch it is because of 2 things 1 Depending on which it is the plaintiff has to prove different things 2 And also you can get different kinds of damages iv In the case of liable the plaintiff can win the case without actually proving your reputation was damaged the court assumes it was damaged if you prove liable defamation occurred v In the case of slander and you won you do need to prove that your reputation was damaged The court does not assume it was damaged unless it is regarded as SLANDER PER SE if it is this the court treats it as liable and you don t need to prove 1 4 categories of SLANDER PER SE if the statement falls into any of these four categories it is slander per se a The plaintiff has committed a crime of moral turpitude which are fraud or blackmail This is a crime that has some moral element STD is typical b Defendant says the plaintiff has
View Full Document
Unlocking...