Torts in 2 pages (8 pt font)
Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 2:36 am
TortLaw Goals/Policy: 1.distributing costs of injuries that are “by-product” of society2. Compensating injured people. 3 Deter wrongful conduct 4. Achieve corrective justice, restore status quo 5. Fairness 6. Redistribution of Wealth.// Respondeat superior: employers vicarously liable for the torts of their employes within the scope of their employment, but not for the torts of independent contractors. Employee=employer has right to control the work performed, timing, means of accomplishing work. Ind K’or factors: 1.employer or worker control over work? 2.Organization-worker integrated into co.? 3.Does worker directly benefit from labor? //”Scope of Employment” [Christensen]test: (1)is it of general kind the employee hired to perform? (2)occurs w/in hours and boundaries of employment(3) motivated partially by serving employer’s interest?//Liability for Ind. K’or{Roessler]: ApparentAgency: (1)Representation(2)Reliance (3)Change in Position of 3rd Party on basis of Repres’n; NonDelegableDuty: ct could say something is nondelegable, eg) ultrahazardous activity as in PeculiarRisk doctrine (R2d§416 & 427). PRIMAFACIE Neg Tort> DUTY, duty imposed by law to conform to specific standard of care BREACH, failed to conform CAUSATION, actual (“but for”) and proximate (close enough casual connection to hold D liable as matter of policy) DAMAGES, P suffered actual damages. ORDIN’Y CARE: i)untaken precaution [Adams v Bullock: reas in light of foreseeable harm, feasible, practical, not prohibitively costly] ii)requires risk be Foreseeable; Standard of Due Care to be decided by JURY (Pokora, Andrews overrule Goodman)BALANCING (Hand Rule) – “Where an act which a reasonable person would recognize as involving a risk of harm to another, the risk is unreasonable and the act is negligent if the risk is of such magnitude as to outweigh what the law regards as the utility of the act or of the particular manner in which it is done.” Formula: (P) probability (L)severity of injury(B)burden of precaution; B<P*L=noliability. Posner likes; criticism=hard to quantify. CUSTOM-can be introduced – nonconclusive evidence of presence or absence of reas care. [Trimarco] Compliance w/custom: 1.comm’y judgement 2.costs of alternative may be high, Customs from diff. industry-suggest foreseeability, notice of avail, feasible precautions. Emerg’y Doct=D must behave as reas person faced w/ same emerg’y [Cordas taxi case] STATUTES-“Neg. Per Se” [Cardozo, Martin v Herzog] R3d§286: “Actor is negligent if, without excuse, the actor violates a statue that is designed to protect against the type of accident the actor’s conduct causes, and the accident victim is within the class of persons the statute is designed to protect.” (eg-Applied in Gorris –cages statute meant to protect sheep from disease spread, not washing overboard→not liable). Excuse to statue violation – Tedla – compliance more dangerous; Violation of license statute =/= negligence. Reas Person – reas “blind man” reas child of like age/experience(unless dangerous or adult activity), NO REAS MENTAL patient.//PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE – burden on P (production of evidence, persuasion-by preponderance). ConstruciveNotice-[Negri] ; Forseeable Risk = alternative to C.Notice[RandallvK-Mart—selfserve birdseed=foreseeablerisk] RES IPSA (accident alone is prima facie evidence of negligence) RIL factors=(1)accident must be of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in absence of negligence(2)accident must be caused by agency or instrumentality within exclusive control of D (3)accident must not be due to contribution of P[Byrne, McDougald-tire escapes from semi] Ybarra allows RIL applied to medical (1)P receives injury only causable by D’s(2)P in care and control of D’s(3)P is unconscious.//MALPRACTICE-custom can be dispositive. St of Care=R2d§299 “one who provides professional services is required to exercise the skill and knowledge normally possessed by members of that profession or trade in similar communities”-today national standard. Experts used for RIL except where common knowledge[Lourdes]. INF.CONSENT-failure to get it is form of negligence;traditional=battery. Elements of INFCONSENT cause-(1)existence of alternative treatment (2) material risks present(3)must show that info a/b alternatives would have changed P’s position.// DUTY – No Affirmative duty unless special relationship(R3d§37 “an actor whose conduct has NOT CREATED A RISK of physical harm to another has NO DUTY OF CARE to the other” [Harper v Herman]RiskCREATION rule-create risk creates duty (R3d§7). DUTY IS A QUESTION OF LAW for JUDGE. // Rowland-used by CA, others to impose GEN’L Duty to All (all persons have duty to use ordinary care to prevent others from being injured by their conduct) **Rowland Factors-(1)Foreseeability of harm{this critic in Rest3d}(2)degree of certainty that D suffered injury(3)proximity of conduct to injury(4)moral blameworth of D conduct (5)policy of prevent future harm(6)burden to D &community(7)prevalence, cost, avail’y of insurance. //Special Rel-ships: commoncarrier, innkeeper, business-invitees, employer-employees,school-students,custodians;COVENTURERS -(Farwell v Keaton). SpRelations & 3rd Party-Tarasoff- R2d§319-“when an actor takes charge of a 3rd person who they know or should know may cause harm, they have a duty to exercise reas care to control the 3rd person to prevent that harm”. Tarasof-D only has duty to protect FORESEEABLE VICTIMS from 3d pty harm. NegEmploymet (hire violent person, etc)may give rise to liability for 3rd Party harm – harm must 1)be foreseeable 2)fall w/in scope of emp’nt. NegMisrepresentation(creation of risk)–Randi W- R2d§311: “one who negligently gives false information to another is subject to liability for physical harm caused by action taken by the other in reasonable reliance upon such information, where such harm results to the other, or to such 3rd persons as the actor should expect to be put in peril by the action taken” AIDING another-if come to aid of injured person, assume duty to provide reas care R2d§324: once take charge of another, liable if (1)fail to use reas care to assure their safety or (2)discontinue aid & leave them in worse position than before. Non-negligent Creation of Risk-must mitigate risks created by prior nonnegligent acts (R2d§321). Limiting Liability to 3rd Parties based on Policy-a)Crushing Liability[Riss-no police duty to prevent harm],b)unable to control tortfeasor[Pulka],c)Privity of K[Strauss],d)social guests/alcohol[Reynolds v Hicks]; e.)knowledge required [Delta]Other 3rd P liabilities-Palka-if D act proximate cause where “reliance and injury are direct and demonstrable, not incidental or merely collateral”; DramShop Acts; NegEntrustment-ct’s split-Vince-aunt liable for buying car for bad driver, Peterson-father not liable for buying alcoholic child a car. //Premises-no duty to trespassers(unless children;cannot willful,wanton injure;frequent or known trespassers). LICENSEES-most common social guests; has owner’s consent to be on premises but not there for business purposes. Owner has no duty to inspect for unknown dangers, but must warn licensees. Liab to Licen=owner (1)activity not carried out with reas care (2) he should expect licensee will not discover danger (3) licensee does not have reason to know of risk. INVITEES-(1)business invitees(2)members of public-Owner must inspect for unknown dangers, must affirmatively remedy danger conditions. Liab to Invit=owner (1)fails to carry on his activites with reas care for vistitor safety (2) should expect that they will not discover the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it. REJECTION of L/I distinction-modern trend. Now apply reas person (ie ROWLAND) Ess. Rule is that all lawful visitors treated as Invitees. OPEN/OBVIOUS dangers-usually owner not liable unless knows injury likely to occur despite obviousness. Landlord liab=(1)hidden danger that LL knows, T does not (2)premises leased for public use (3)premises under LL control (4)premises neg’y repaired. Criminal Acts-Posecai-duty to take reas preacautions to protect invitees from FORESEABLE crime. CA balancing test=weigh burden against magnitude of risk (Hand approach)-disguse breach as duty so judge can determine. // Emotional Harm-if phys harm+emotional→IMPACT rule→recov’y for emot harm (R2d§456).Threat of phys injury but none→”Zone of Danger”. Phys Harm to 3rd Party→DillonRule [Jaffee] factors=(1)P’s physical proximity to accident(2)P witness to accident(3)Close relationship b/w P and injured person(4)some cts-accident causes death. Some ct’s limit 3rd P emot harm, call them “interested bystanders” [JamaicaHospital] //CAUSATION-P must show D’s conduct to be both ACTUAL and PROX cause of harm. D act must be A (not the)“But For” cause: harm would not have occurred but for D act. Stubbs-P need only establish facts show to show reas certainty that D was more likely than not a direct cause of the injury; not nec’y to eliminate all other poss causes. Multiple D’s-AlternativeLiabilityTheory-Summers v Tice-if 2+ D at fault, but only 1 couldve caused harm, burden shifts to D’s to show other responsible,until then J&S liability. LOSTCHANCE harm-lowered chance of avoiding harm by 25%→ juries may award 25% of total damages. If cross 51%, most jxd award 100% damages. SubstantialFactor test-obsolete, used to say multiple sufficient cause→any cause that was subst.factor in causing the harm→liability. Still must be “but for” cause to = subst. factor →3d Rest removes S.F. test. MKTSHARE[Hymowitz,Sindell]-mult.manufacturer D’s act in parallel to produce identical (fungible)goods even though P can’t show which D caused specific harm→P recovers in proportion to D’s national mktshare (ie less than 100% recovery for P) Inc risk, but no Actual harm→most jxd P can only recover if 51% chance of harm occurng. Minor.jxd→even less than51% can recover(eg-20% chance→20% damages).//JOINT&SEVERAL Liabilty→each D liable for entire harm(P can collect all damages from D1 or D2 but CANNOT double-recover). Jxd approaches: (1)15 jxd keep trad. J&S (2)20 jxd Hybrid approach a)reallocation-if one D insolvent, reallocate damages b/w others.(b)hybrid w/ threshold %-if D >50% fault, J&S, if <50%, only severally liable. (c) CA Hybrid=keep J&S for economic damages but Several only for noneconomic. (3) PURE Several-15 jxd=each D liable only for her share of liability. Traditional J&S applies only where harm is INDIVISIBLE(eg-death). If can APPORTION (eg-D1 pollutes from ‘70-‘90, D2 pollutes from 91-10→ct will apportion damage, neither to pay for harm caused by other). “Acting in concert”→ no Apportioning (eg-2 D’s drag race). CONTRIBUTION available in trad. J&S-reimbursement from other D. INDEMNITY-resp. superior-Employer can get 100% of damages paid back from Employee. *Scenarios where J&S doesn’t apply: (a)multiple D’s each cause distinct harm to P (b)successive injuries-D1 knocks P down, breaking hip. D2 runs over P, breaking arm. D1 liable for both, D2 only liable for 2nd. (c)Apportionable injuries-see below.//PROX CAUSE-“conduct will be deemed to be a proximate cause of harm if the harm was a foreeseeable result of the conduct, and if the harm was not brought about by an extraordinary or unforseeable sequence of events.- modern approach-D usually not liable for very unforeseeable consequences. D is always liable for foreseeable harm to foreseeable victim. Policy-if can’t foresee, can’t change behavior; no benefit to imposing liability. Wagon Mound-D’s generally liable only for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his negligence(overturns Polemis). Rest3d- a D is ‘not liable for harm different from the harms whose risks made the D’s conduct tortious”. Scope of Risk-actual harm sufferd must be of same general type as that which make’s D conduct Negligent. D not liable when the harm arises from an entirely different hazard than that created by D negligence [R3d§§29-30](eg-Rat poison hypo-D not liable if it unforeseeably explodes next to heated stove.) SupersedingCause-D says despite tortious act, a later act supersedes his negligence, breaking causal chain.(often see in Criminal tort claims-eg) Doe v Mannheimer-D not liable when P raped overgrown bushes). UnforseeablePlaintiff-Palsgraf-Cardozo-duty to avoid injuring others extends only to foreseeable victims. Andrews: liability extends to all unforeseen victims, EXCEPT if factors apply: 1)did injury follow natural/continuous sequence(2)was tort a substantial factor in causing injury?(3)how direct is the connection b/w tort & injury?(4)how likely is the tort to cause injury?(5)how foreseeable is the injry?(6)how distant is the tort from the injury in time&space?. Cardozo the majority view, minority jxd follow Andrews. /Unexpectedly Severe Injury-D liable for full harm if injury more severe than expected (eg-Benn v Thomas & Eggshell P rule). Normal responses by 3d parties not superseding; any negligence by medical response not superseding (eg Ambulance wreck→ D still 100% liable). Time a common superseding cause (eg-accident 7 years b4 mental insanity/murder→D not liable). //DEFENSES-Contributory Negligence-CommonLaw rule: “If P negligent AT ALL, then P is TOTALLY BARRED from reovery. Minority rule, only 4 jxd follow today. Cont’yNeg-P negligence must have proximately contributed to his injuries. Con’yNeg & Neg Per Se-eg)P violated statute→Con’yNeg(seen in Martin v Herzog). C.Neg. limited by LastClearChance rule(D’s failure to take advantage of one last chance to avoid accident→P’s C.Neg. wiped away). COMPARATIVE FAULT-majority of jxd have reformed w/ some form of CompFault. C.Fault-P’s recovery reduced by the proportion of his own negligence. PURE vs. “50 %” jxd—13 jxd have Pure C. Fault (if P 95% fault, still recovers 5%). 50% jxd—P’s fault must be less than 50% to recover. Multiple D’s-if all parties b4 the court, easy to apportion. If not all D’s present, jxd approaches vary-often apply traditional J&S. Uniform Comparative Fault Act (UCFA)-uses PURE C.Fault approach→ (A)if D1 insolvent, his share split %’y among other parties.(B) Incintive to settle 1st → once D1 settles, all other D’s barred from seeking contribution from D1.(C)No setoff.(D)basic rules of J&S unchanged.(E)MEASURING NEG TEST→jury should consider:(1)Actor’s awarneess of danger in conduct(2)magnitude of risk (#&severity of poss injuries)(3)goal of actor conduct (4)any superior/inferior capabilites of Actor(5)special/exigent circumstances.(F)Determination of Fault by jury(weigh &compare respectice faults)//ASS’N OF RISK-P voluntarily consents to chance harm will occur. Trad commonlaw→Assume risk→complete bar on recovery. EXPRESS A’n of Risk-P explicitly(usu. by K)waives right to sue D for negligence(negates D duty to use due care). Validity of K:(1)P must have NOTICE of waiver(2)waiver must cover actual injury that occurred(3)must not be void against public policy. POLICY: VA approach-waivers from liability ALWAYS void. CA Approach: Tunkl factors: (1)is this type of business that is generally regulated? (2)is the service of great importance to the public?(3)is the serice offered to everyone?(4)is there inequity in barganing power?(5)is there option to pay more to avoid waiver?(6)is P’s person or property put in position of reliance? VT approach: Dalury-waivers void when they remove an incentive for D to use reas care. *Gross Neg/Recklessness can never be waived or disclaimed by K. //IMPLIED Ass’n of Risk—PRIMARY: known inherent risks taken by P (eg-Steeplechase-dangerous ride).Test=P has (1)knowledge of dangerous condition(2) appreciation of nature/extent of danger(3)voluntarily exposed self to risk. 2 Approaches to open/obvious dangers: (1) DUTY jxds(inc. CA)=person who takes part in activity accepts obvious and necessary dangers of that activity and can only hold D liable for reckless conduct. (eg-Jewett-P cannot recover for touch football injury). (2)Breach Jxd=assume participants in activity owe duty to each other & focus on Breach (ie-examine whether D’s conduct was unreasonable). Sports participants/spectators usually assume obvious/open risk→ recovery barred.// 2ndARY Implied Ass’n of Risk=P knowingly exposed himself to a risk created by D’s negligence. Most jxd apply ComparativeFault principles here. (unless it was “Reasonable Choice”—then most jxd allow recovery. If “Unreas. Choice” (eg-Davenport walking down negligently lighted stairs)→recover reduced by CompFault).//DAMAGES-generally cannot recover w/o physical injury.Compensatory damages= meant to restore P to pre-tort position. Damages must be discounted to Present Value. Elements: (1) direct losses (eg-value of lost body part)(2)economic loss(eg medical bills, lost earnings)(3)pain&suffering(4)most jxd allow loss of consortium, quality of life, etc. MITIGATE DUTY-P cannot recover for any damages she could have avoided. Punitive(punish) damages only available where D conduct “reckless,” or “willful and wanton”. J&S/CompFault principles apply to damages. Seffert-damages only overturned where “passion,prejudice, or corruption” by jury. Constitutional limits→ratio b/w econ:nonecon damages usually in the single digits.//STRICT LIABILITY-D liable regardless whether D negligent. Commonlaw: (1)keeping wild animals(2)abnormally dangerous activity(like blasting-Dunham). (3)non-natural use of land(Rylands). Modern “AbnormallyDangerousActivity” Factors (R2d§520)→(1)high degree of risk of harm to others(2)resulting harm likely to be serious(3)**risk cannot be eliminated by exercise of reas. care**(4)activity is not common(5)activity is not appropriate for the place where carried out(6)the danger outweighs the activity's value to the community.*#3 is the most important!* Cts often reject S.L. for common activities. Rest3d changes test, focuses only on first 4 factors: “activity is abnormally dangerous if it creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even where reas care exercised by all actors, and the activity is not a matter of common usage.” Policy & S.L.→(1)encourages actors to forgo risky activities unless have good reason(2)encourages actors to take extra precautions(3)losses should be placed on party who can most easily spread the cost(4)SL more effective at this class of injuries than Neg. /LIMITS on SL→ (1)SL only for damage resultng from the kind of risk that made activity dangerous(eg-truck carrying dynomite not SL for car accident! P must bring Negligence claim. (2)No S.L. where P suffers from abnormally sensitive nature (eg-Foster: D blaster not liable when minks panic killing young). *Ass’n of Risk CAN be defense to SL claim. ///PRODUCT LIABILITY: can be based on 3 theories: (1)Negligence –personal injury has been caused by negligently manufactured product (eg-MacPherson v Buick-neg’y made wheel). Bystanders/nonpurchasers of product who are “foreseeable plaintiffs” can recover in negligence (eg-pedestrian hit by car w/ neg’y manuf. brakes) Manufacturers & Retailers can be liable for negligence. (2) WARRANTY-(a)Breach of Express Warr’y-UCC 2-313 allows recovery if seller makes specific representations about the quality of a product, and the buyer is injured due to the failure of product to fulfill those rep’ns. (b)Breach of IMPLIED Warr’y of Merchantability-UCC 2-314: P shows (1)D made public misrep’n (intentionally,reckles,negl,or innocent) about a material fact to the K (2)P acted in reliance on that misrep’n (3)P injured b/c product was not as repr’nted by seller. “Merchantable”=(1) sold by merchant(2) fit for ordinary purposes for which the product used. /WarantyDefenses=(1)merchants can disclaim implied and express warranties under UCC(disclaimer must be Conspicuous).(2)can try to limit remedies to “repair or replace” defective product.(3)bystanders cannot recover under Misrep’n/Warr’y.//#3 STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY-“Seller strictly liable for personal or physical injuries caused by the product if the product is sold in a defective condition. SPL applies to Manuf’er,Retailer,& any other party in chain of distribution. Limits to SPL: (1)defect must have existed at time left D’s control (2)liability limited to injuries that occur during product’s intended, normal, or foreseeable use. (3) the defect must have been the factual and proximate cause of the harm (4) D must be engaged in business of selling the product. Unintended Uses-must be anticipated as “foreseeable” by manuf’er. Misuses can sometimes be ContributoryNegligence. Destroyed Evidence (ie-defective product kaput)-need to make inference of defect: P’s injury=(1)of kind that ordinarily occurs due to product defects (2)couldn’t have happened w/o prod. defect. 3rd parties/bystanders can recover under SPL. ##Policy Rationale##-Traynor, Escola:(1)costs of injuries should be borne by manuf. rather than innocent, defenseless consumers(2)to DETER manuf’s from negligently producing products(3)placing burden of proof on Manuf. b/c P has no access to manuf process info.**Three types of Defects: (#1) Manuf. defect (#2)Design defect (#3)Warning defect//#1 MANUF DEFECTS-to recover P need only establish that the defect existed, made the product unreas dangerous, and caused his injury (can use harm-causing product’s failure to meet product specifications as evidence). Burden of Proof-Rest3d:”departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in the preparation and marketing of product.” CA: “failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonbly forseeable manner”//#2 DESIGN Defects-Product can be defective if its design makes it unnecessarily dangerous to the user. 4 tests: (i)ConsumerExpectationsTest-R2d§402: “product unreasonably dangerous if it is dangerous to the extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as its characteristics.” (ii)Risk/UtilityBalancingTest: among other factors, jury to consider:(1)usefulness of product(2)probability and magnitude of injury(3)availability of a substitute (4)ability to eliminate unsafe feature w/o overly impairing usefulness or cost(5)user’s ability to avoid danger by using due care(6)user’s anticipated awareness of the dangers inherent in the product(7)feasibility of spreading the loss by setting the price or carrying insurance.[applied in Camacho](iii) Combined – CA & other jxd hold that product defective if fails either of the first 2 tests. (iv)Reasonable AlternativeDesigns (Rest3d Approach): incorporates Camacho test but also requires P show a “RAD” that would’ve eliminated risk. RAD Design Factors: does alt. design’s omission render product unreas unsafe?:(1) probability/ magnitude of risks(2)instructions/warnings sold w/product(3)consumers’ expectations(4)advantages/disad’s of product and its alternative. CA – can win w/o showing RAD if product fails cons. expect. test. Irreducibly unsafe product=no RAD (cts split whether to impose SPL).*SimpleTools*-eg)cig lighter, knives-cannot be found defective b/c the benefits & risks are Open&Obvious. O&O=more likely to win under Camacho than ConsExpect’s. //#3 WARNING Defects- “Negligence” action -- a product, though reas designed, may be defective for failure to provide warning of the dangers posed by its use. INADEQUATE Warning =defective:(1)foreseeable risks of harm could have been reduced or avoided by adding reasonable warnings and (2)the omission of the warning or instruction makes the product unsafe. Warnings must be provided for inherent risks that reasonbly foreseeable product users would reasonbly deem material in deciding whether to purchase or use. *duty to warn against (i)foreseeable misuse (ii)inherent dangers; NO duty to warn against dangers that are COMMON KNOWLEDGE(eg-no duty to warn of dangers of riding in bed of pickup). Adequate Warnings=(1)describe scope of risk?(2)describe severity of risk?(3)would physical aspects alert a RPP?(4)indicates consequences of failure to follow?(5)is it adequately conveyed?[Hood v Ryobi] **LIKELY Test Q-Manuf CANNOT avoid liability for Defect Design simply by giving AdequateWarning. Rest3d: when safer design poss., warnings are not adequate. Rest2d gives minority: product not defective if warning given & product can be safely used if warning followed. FlawedWarnings=(1) excessive-each add’l warning dilutes value (2)misrep’ns-negligent,innocent,intentional misrepresentations in warning→liability. Some jxd impose S.L. if P relied on material misrepresentations. UNKNOWN RISKS & warnings→ ct’s split; Maj=R3d view:Manuf. NOT liable for failure to warn when risks were not reasonbly foreseable at time of sale or couldn’t have been discovered w/ reasonable testing. CA view(Heightened Negligence)=D should be held to something higher than Neg. standard & shold be required to warn of those risks which are discoverable in light of the “generally recognized and prevailing” best knowledge availabe. MinorityView: Strict liability for failing to warn regardless of their knowledge of risks→create incentives for D to do more research.//When to Warn of Newly Disc. Risks: (1)seller knows or should do know risk of harm, (2)customers can be ID’d & are likely unaware of risk(3)warning can be communicated & acted upon(4)warning is not too burdensome//DEFENSES to Defective Product: (1)not defective if –meets consumer expectations, danger is open & obvious, warning is adequate, or unforeseeable misuse. Also can modify product, some courts will hold this to be superseding cause.//INTENTIONAL TORTS-D intended to bring a/b some form of physical or mental effect upon another person. Substantial certainty-Garratt-if D knows w/ subst. certainty that a particular effect will result from act, she is deemed to have intended that result(“highly likely” not enough for int. tort). Transferred Intent-if have req. intent w/r/t A, transfers to B.//BATTERY-intentional infliction of harmful or offensive bodily contact. Intent element: (1)D intended to cause a harmful or offensive bodily contact; or (2)D intended to cause imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive phys. Contact. Spitting=battery(damaging to “reas. sense of dignity”). Battery where contact goes beyond level consented to (eg-old view of informed consent).//ASSAULT= intentional causing of an apprehnesion of harmful or offensive contact. D has req. intent for assault if she either “intends to commit an assault” or “intends to commit a battery”. Words alone not enough (need overt threatening physical act).//FALSE IMPRISONMENT-intentional infliction of a confinement. Intent: P must show D either intended to confine, or knew w/ subst. certainty that P would be confined by D’s action. “Confinement”=P cannot leave! Means of Confinment= Threats, Assertions of Legal Authority.
