plus who doesn't love hypos? intentional torts and consent and defense of self/others/property
Mr. Pringle, a widower with two children, asked his fifteen-year-old daughter, Prudence, to babysit his five-year-old son, Christopher, while he went out to play poker with his friends one evening. Prudence invited her eighteen-year-old boyfriend, Dick Dasher, to watch TV with her. Prudence and Dick expected Mr. Pringle to come back around midnight. Mr. Pringle got a migraine headache as he was playing poker, however, and returned much sooner than expected. At approximately 10 p.m., he walked into the house and discovered Prudence and Dick on the sofa, both undressed and engaged in the act of sexual intercourse. Mr. Pringle yelled [expletive deleted] at Dick, and Dick jumped up off the sofa, quickly put on his pants and dashed out of the house. Prudence then had a long conversation with her father in which she told him that she had been a virgin until that evening, that she had been dating Dick for over six months, that he had asked her to have intercourse with him before, and that in the past she had always refused because she was not sure of what she ought to do. This evening, she had not said anything one way or another, but she had not resisted his advances because she had talked with a girlfriend who had told her that there was nothing wrong with having sex. In fact, it could be fun!
Mr. Pringle has come to you for advice. He wants to know whether Prudence could recover damages in an action against Dick Dasher. (This lawsuit is obviously Mr. Pringle’s idea; Prudence is still dating Dick.) You have discovered that the legislature has enacted the following statutory rape law:
A person who perpetrates an act of sexual intercourse with a female, not his wife, under the age of sixteen years is guilty of rape, and punishable by imprisonment for not more than ten years. Under this statute, a crime is committed even if the female consents.
Discuss Prudence’s rights against Dick Dasher. You have 50 minutes to answer this question.
I didn't write it all out, but I got:
Mr. Pringle vs. Dasher:
- Trespass to land (in his house without his permission)
- Trespass to conversion (Dasher's actions on sofa have robbed Mr. Pringle of it's usefulness)
- Assault (possible when he jumped off of sofa when caught that he might have made some motion that created apprehension in Mr. Pringle)
Daughter Pringle v. Dasher:
- Assault (when he moved in it could have created apprehension on the part of Pringle of immediate offensive contact)
- Battery (Dasher performed offensive contact on Pringle)
Dasher v. Mr. Pringle:
- Assault (Mr. Pringle screaming at him, causing apprehension of immediate harmful contact)
- False Imprisonment (this is kind of stretching the hypo a bit, but if Mr. Pringle was standing in door-way, or was telling him that he couldn't leave along with immediate threat of harm)
- Implied-in-fact consent to battery (Daughter pringle never rejected sex and never made any conduct that she didn't want it)
--- Consent is void for incompetence of plaintiff (plaintiff is a minor, not aware of severeity of her actions)
--- Consent is void for consent to illegal act (plaintiff can not consent to an illegal act, aka see statutory rape statute)
- Defense of Others (assault on Dasher was in a perceived defense of the battery against his daughter)