Torts Fall 2014

August 28, 2014

*with both definitions of intent the standard is still subjective but the jury has to
determine

With the last case we saw that most jurisdictions look at the ability of the particular
child to understand the battery, to form the intent.

Vicarious liability
1. Childrens liablility for intentional torts.
a. The parents
b. Vicarious liability
i. If I am working under my employer , my employer is liable for
my actions through vicarious liability
ii. Think of vicarious as the people who are fans of sports team and
then get excited when their team scores
iii. In the law it is when someone does something wrong
iv. Parents are not vicariously liable for the intentional torts of their
children. (historically through common law)
1. If your child punches another the child is liable but the
parent is not
2. California has changed this , and has made them liable
but there is a dollar amount limit. He put this on the
website
3. Parents can be liable for another tort and that is negligent
supervision and there is no cap on the damages for this.
*with each tort think of why a tort was created, what is its purpose
*REMEMBER THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROOVE
EACH ELEMENT TO THE STANDARD OF PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
Battery

two meanings of intent

o having the desire or willful meaning of commit the battery
o knowing with substantial certainty
o garret v. dailey
o if you intended the contact and some consequences that werent
intended happen you still have the intent

most intentional tort cases are pretty plainly desire cases.

The second definition of intent knew with substantial certainty
is a secondary definition meaning that we first look for the
desire or purpose and if we dont find those then we go on to
the knowledge with substantial certainty
This tort protects our dignity and our body
Battery requires contact.
The offensive contact protects from people touching our bodies in
harmful or offensive ways.
Battary can only be committed against people
Battary is a people tort, it has to be the person of another
o
o

Battery

The contact element

a. Harmful contact
b. Offensive contact-objective standard

Harmful contact= some sort of impairment to the body, it does not

have to b something that is serious. The pain that happens when
someone hits you in the face even if they leave no trace. There is
also really harmful contact such as shooting someone. The
definition is pretty broad
Offensive contact= A bodily contact is offensive if it offends a
reasonable sense of personal dignity
In order for it to be an offensive contact, it needs to be the standard
of a reasonable person of what it offensive. IN our society we have
to put up with certain types of touching that might offend us
because the standard is based on societies standard of offensive.
If you know that someone finds touch offensive and you touch them
with the intention of offending them, then it constitutes as offensive
contact even if society would not deem the type of contact
offensive.
PG 30 (PROFESSOR POINTS OUT THE RESTATEMENT AND THE
NOTES FOR OFFESIVE CONTACT) AS AN OBJECTIVE CONTACT BASED
ON THE REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD

Transferred Intent pg. 25

it is a legal fiction (the law makes it up). The law pretends that the
person ex. The nun intends to hit a person and end up hitting the
student behind her because the original student ducked. The intent
transfers.

You can also transfer intent between torts

o Acting intending to cause an imminent apprehension of
offensive contact
o I didnt intended to hit or cause real contact , I intended to
assault her and then I end up hitting her then the intent
transfers between torts and it becomes a battery.

JUDGMENT NOT WITHSATNDING THE VERDICT

-PG. 31
-WHEN THE JUDGE FINDS THAT THE JURYS VERDICT DOES NOT
SUPPORT THE FACTS OR ELEMENTS OF THE BATTERY IN THIS CASE.

SUBJECTIVE TEST
-WHAT IS IT?
-DID THIS PARTICUALR PERSON FIND IT OFFENSIVE
-WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT A SUBJECTIVE VIEW WE ARE
LOOKING AT THIS PARTICULAR PERSONS VIEW OF OFFENSIVE.
With objective you are looking at what society as a whole
would thing is offensive.

Harmful or offensive contact can be direct or indirect (you set

something in motion)

FOR ISSUE STATEMENT PROFESSOR LIKES TO USE THE

WORDING ELEMENT IN CONTENTION MENANING WHAT IS AT
ISSUE, WHAT THE PARTIES ARE FIGHTING OVER.

FISHER V. CARROUSEL MOTOR HOTEL

A contact is touching a person or something closely associated with a

person
He likes this case in terms of batter bec. It focuses in indirect contact.

In Garratt v. Dailey the boy never touched her but he intended for her
to have a harmful and offensive contact with the ground
The court said touching the plate was like touching fisher

Example issue statement from Summer being called in class:

Did Flynn meet the element of contact making him liable for battery
when he snatched the plate form Fishers hands and insulted him in
front of his colleagues?
It Carrousel responsible for Flynns conduct at the club and therefore
liable for exemplary damages awarded to Fisher?
Fixed version of the issue statement above: is the employer
responsible when its managerial employee acting within the scope of
his employment

FACTS:

Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications Inc. (another contact case)

Per Curiam?
*when everyone is in agreement through the court. There is no one that
signed this particular opinion pg. 32
Obitur Dictum: Latin something said in passing. A judicial comment made while
delivering a judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that
is unnecessary tot the decision in the case and therefore nto precedential (although
it may be considered persuasive)
FACTS: The plaintiff-appellant, Ahron Leichtman
Issue Statement: Has a battery been committed when a person intentionally
directs tobacco smoke at another. (include the
When Furman intentionally blew smoke in Leichtman face was it
Revised Issue Statement:
*note: the court says that it is not up to the court to use battery to apply it
to smoke. Which would ban smoking. This is dictum in this case , see def.
above.

ASSAULT RULE MEMORIZE PG 730, NOTICE THAT ASSUALT IS IN THE FIRST

PART OF BATTERY RULE GIVEN TO US.

-There can be an assault without a battery. If I throw an eraser which creates the
immediate expectations of being hit by the eraser.
We can have a battery without an assault. There is no requirement in Battery to
have an imminent apprehension of a harmful contact.
-We can have an assault and a battery, when you have the
-SECTION 21 PART A AND B, IS WHAT YOU NEED TO MEMORIZE AS PART OF
THE DEFINITION, AS THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

Read v. Coker
Facts: The Plaintiff a paper stainer who rented from the defendant was
behind 16 weeks in rent. The landlord/defendant employed Holiwell to
seize Reads property for payment. Holliwell seized Reads presses, lathes,
and some other trade fixtures and advanced him some money, upon the
request of the plaintiff, intended to pay rent. Plaintiff was unable to get
his processions and