Intentional torts hypo.

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
kswiss
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:58 am

Intentional torts hypo.

Postby kswiss » Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:34 am

Mudibe Awls is chilling after a hard day of stripping at his own club, The Dirty Sanchez. He sits in one of the booths and watches as his new server Darla mops the floors. Suddenly, a brick breaks a window and lands on the floor at Darla’s feet. She yells, “what the fuck!” Mudibe yells, “Duck!” Then, a giant man dressed in a hot-dog costume breaks through the rest of the window. When he sees Darla and Mudibe, his eyes widen in fright. Mudibe grabs the giant penis statue next to the stage and points it at the man, saying, “What’s your name, you fuckwad tortfeasor!” The giant man says, “Smalls is my name.” Mudibe says, “Well, Smalls if you don’t lick my ball sack right now, I’ll hit you with this statue.” Mudibe points to a bag full of soccer balls on the wall. Smalls doesn’t move, so Mudibe swings the statue. Smalls ducks, and the statue hits Darla in the stomach. Smalls takes the opportunity to run out the door and onto the street grabbing a bottle of disinfectant on his way out. Darla gets up and walks toward Mudibe while raising her fist. Mudibe runs away. She screams at him, “You baby! I’m gonna get you sometime while you sleep. That dancer’s body is in danger. For the rest of your life!” She then runs outside to chase Smalls. Smalls is a huge dude, so is panting in the street outside the club. Darla catches up to him and does a flying scissor kick into the back of his neck. Her foot gets stuck in his neck fold and she suffers a broken ankle. Smalls falls to the ground, and in doing so, the bottle of disinfectant flies out of his hands and onto a 90-year-old man's face. The man is permanently blinded as a result.

Analyze all claims that the actors could have against each other.

dakatz
Posts: 2460
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:19 pm

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby dakatz » Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:37 am

Something tells me this won't be the particular fact pattern used on my torts exam, although it would sure make it more interesting if it were. I would totally go through this thing for real if I wasn't busy finishing up my outlining for the week :(

User avatar
Bustang
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby Bustang » Thu Sep 16, 2010 8:02 pm

This is too awesome to pass up. I want to answer this during my Sunday outlining session :) Much thanks.

User avatar
traehekat
Posts: 3195
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:00 pm

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby traehekat » Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:19 pm

lol wtf did you make this up yourself?

User avatar
Stanford4Me
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:23 am

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby Stanford4Me » Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:37 pm

This. Is. Amazing!

User avatar
Stanford4Me
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:23 am

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby Stanford4Me » Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:37 pm

kswiss wrote:Mudibe Awls is chilling after a hard day of stripping at his own club, The Dirty Sanchez. He sits in one of the booths and watches as his new server Darla mops the floors. Suddenly, a brick breaks a window and lands on the floor at Darla’s feet. She yells, “what the fuck!” Mudibe yells, “Duck!” Then, a giant man dressed in a hot-dog costume breaks through the rest of the window. When he sees Darla and Mudibe, his eyes widen in fright. Mudibe grabs the giant penis statue next to the stage and points it at the man, saying, “What’s your name, you fuckwad tortfeasor!” The giant man says, “Smalls is my name.” Mudibe says, “Well, Smalls if you don’t lick my ball sack right now, I’ll hit you with this statue.” Mudibe points to a bag full of soccer balls on the wall. Smalls doesn’t move, so Mudibe swings the statue. Smalls ducks, and the statue hits Darla in the stomach. Smalls takes the opportunity to run out the door and onto the street grabbing a bottle of disinfectant on his way out. Darla gets up and walks toward Mudibe while raising her fist. Mudibe runs away. She screams at him, “You baby! I’m gonna get you sometime while you sleep. That dancer’s body is in danger. For the rest of your life!” She then runs outside to chase Smalls. Smalls is a huge dude, so is panting in the street outside the club. Darla catches up to him and does a flying scissor kick into the back of his neck. Her foot gets stuck in his neck fold and she suffers a broken ankle. Smalls falls to the ground, and in doing so, the bottle of disinfectant flies out of his hands and onto a 90-year-old man's face. The man is permanently blinded as a result.

Analyze all claims that the actors could have against each other.

QFP

User avatar
kswiss
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:58 am

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby kswiss » Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:44 pm

traehekat wrote:lol wtf did you make this up yourself?


yeah I'm studying for an intentional torts midterm and got bored. It took all of 5 minutes.

User avatar
Bustang
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby Bustang » Fri Sep 17, 2010 8:45 pm

I can't decide what I approve of more: Your tar or this question.

User avatar
kswiss
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:58 am

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby kswiss » Sat Sep 18, 2010 1:08 am

Yeah, I'm pretty religious. I feel touched by his noodley appendage on a daily basis.

User avatar
swc65
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby swc65 » Sat Sep 18, 2010 1:52 am

This makes me sad that we are not studying intentional torts this year. :(

User avatar
dailygrind
Posts: 19658
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:08 am

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby dailygrind » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:50 pm

kswiss wrote:Mudibe Awls is chilling after a hard day of stripping at his own club, The Dirty Sanchez. He sits in one of the booths and watches as his new server Darla mops the floors. Suddenly, a brick breaks a window and lands on the floor at Darla’s feet. She yells, “what the fuck!” Mudibe yells, “Duck!” Then, a giant man dressed in a hot-dog costume breaks through the rest of the window. When he sees Darla and Mudibe, his eyes widen in fright. Mudibe grabs the giant penis statue next to the stage and points it at the man, saying, “What’s your name, you fuckwad tortfeasor!” The giant man says, “Smalls is my name.” Mudibe says, “Well, Smalls if you don’t lick my ball sack right now, I’ll hit you with this statue.” Mudibe points to a bag full of soccer balls on the wall. Smalls doesn’t move, so Mudibe swings the statue. Smalls ducks, and the statue hits Darla in the stomach. Smalls takes the opportunity to run out the door and onto the street grabbing a bottle of disinfectant on his way out. Darla gets up and walks toward Mudibe while raising her fist. Mudibe runs away. She screams at him, “You baby! I’m gonna get you sometime while you sleep. That dancer’s body is in danger. For the rest of your life!” She then runs outside to chase Smalls. Smalls is a huge dude, so is panting in the street outside the club. Darla catches up to him and does a flying scissor kick into the back of his neck. Her foot gets stuck in his neck fold and she suffers a broken ankle. Smalls falls to the ground, and in doing so, the bottle of disinfectant flies out of his hands and onto a 90-year-old man's face. The man is permanently blinded as a result.

Analyze all claims that the actors could have against each other.


i've really only been doing negligence, so i'm probably gonna miss a bunch of stuff. you'll have to excuse me if i do.

presumably mudibe has a claim against smalls for breaking his window, unless smalls was thrown through the window, and for stealing the disinfectant.

darla has a claim against mudibe for hitting her with the statue, because swinging the statue is probably illegal by statute, and him hitting darla is therefore negligence per se, as well as simple negligence, as it doesn't appear he took reasonable care. she has no claim against smalls.

old man has a claim against darla, his blinding by smalls is not due to smalls's actions, but darla's.

smalls has a possible claim against darla, but it'd be hard to prove damage.

User avatar
kswiss
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:58 am

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby kswiss » Sat Sep 18, 2010 9:17 pm

dailygrind wrote:
i've really only been doing negligence, so i'm probably gonna miss a bunch of stuff. you'll have to excuse me if i do.

presumably mudibe has a claim against smalls for breaking his window, unless smalls was thrown through the window, and for stealing the disinfectant.

darla has a claim against mudibe for hitting her with the statue, because swinging the statue is probably illegal by statute, and him hitting darla is therefore negligence per se, as well as simple negligence, as it doesn't appear he took reasonable care. she has no claim against smalls.

old man has a claim against darla, his blinding by smalls is not due to smalls's actions, but darla's.

smalls has a possible claim against darla, but it'd be hard to prove damage.


Without intentional torts vocabulary, its kinda a hard q to answer. Here's what I got:

Breaking window / entering: Trespass to land
Possible claim: Assault (intent to trespass / transferred intent), if

Penis statue:
Smalls has claim for assault (conditional threat, but no right to assert condition)
And assault for actual swinging of the statue.
(possible reasonable force used in defense of property privilege)
Mudibe's intent to batter Smalls transfers to Darla, so battery claim from Darla

Grabbing of disinfectant:
- conversion

Darla raising fist at Mudibe:
- Assault

Darla's comments:
- possible IIED claim by Mudibe. (probably fails, not outrageous)

Darla's flying scissor kick:
- battery (no assault for want of apprehension)

disinfectant in old man's face:
- claim against Smalls fails (no intent)
- claim against Darla (she is responsible for all consequences of initial battery, even unforeseeable)

Other issues:
Respondeat Superior (was Darla acting within scope of employment when she committed battery against Smalls?)
Consequences: All of the consequences came from Smalls' initial trespass to land. He should be liable for all of the consequences.

User avatar
dailygrind
Posts: 19658
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:08 am

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby dailygrind » Sat Sep 18, 2010 11:40 pm

yup, i whiffed hard. i'll blame it on the bat.

isaiah6v8
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 6:02 pm

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby isaiah6v8 » Sun Sep 19, 2010 1:19 am

kswiss wrote:
dailygrind wrote:
i've really only been doing negligence, so i'm probably gonna miss a bunch of stuff. you'll have to excuse me if i do.

presumably mudibe has a claim against smalls for breaking his window, unless smalls was thrown through the window, and for stealing the disinfectant.

darla has a claim against mudibe for hitting her with the statue, because swinging the statue is probably illegal by statute, and him hitting darla is therefore negligence per se, as well as simple negligence, as it doesn't appear he took reasonable care. she has no claim against smalls.

old man has a claim against darla, his blinding by smalls is not due to smalls's actions, but darla's.

smalls has a possible claim against darla, but it'd be hard to prove damage.



Consequences: All of the consequences came from Smalls' initial trespass to land. He should be liable for all of the consequences.


This is what my final conclusion led me to as well, i did have a couple of differences earlier on, but I am too tired to write them out right now, I will do so tomorrow if I have time. Good hypo!

GatorBait09
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:02 pm

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby GatorBait09 » Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:17 pm

kswiss wrote:
dailygrind wrote:
i've really only been doing negligence, so i'm probably gonna miss a bunch of stuff. you'll have to excuse me if i do.

presumably mudibe has a claim against smalls for breaking his window, unless smalls was thrown through the window, and for stealing the disinfectant.

darla has a claim against mudibe for hitting her with the statue, because swinging the statue is probably illegal by statute, and him hitting darla is therefore negligence per se, as well as simple negligence, as it doesn't appear he took reasonable care. she has no claim against smalls.

old man has a claim against darla, his blinding by smalls is not due to smalls's actions, but darla's.

smalls has a possible claim against darla, but it'd be hard to prove damage.


Without intentional torts vocabulary, its kinda a hard q to answer. Here's what I got:

Breaking window / entering: Trespass to land
Possible claim: Assault (intent to trespass / transferred intent), if

There doesn't seem to be transferred intent here, but trespass to land is valid

Penis statue:
Smalls has claim for assault (conditional threat, but no right to assert condition)
And assault for actual swinging of the statue. Agreed
(possible reasonable force used in defense of property privilege)Unlikely but possible, you would have to concede that intending to batter someone with the penis statue is reasonable force and precedent would disagree with this
Mudibe's intent to batter Smalls transfers to Darla, so battery claim from DarlaAgreed

Grabbing of disinfectant:
- conversion I disagree, conversion has to include an attempt to make the property your own. Not enough time has passed and Smalls hasn't used the dissinfectant in any meaningful way. Smalls defense would also be that he accidentally grabbed the bottle

Darla raising fist at Mudibe:
- Assault yup

Darla's comments:
- possible IIED claim by Mudibe. (probably fails, not outrageous)I would think of this more of an assault, IIED extremely hard to prove given these facts

Darla's flying scissor kick:
- battery (no assault for want of apprehension)yup

disinfectant in old man's face:
- claim against Smalls fails (no intent)yup
- claim against Darla (she is responsible for all consequences of initial battery, even unforeseeable)yup

Other issues:
Respondeat Superior (was Darla acting within scope of employment when she committed battery against Smalls?)nope
Consequences: All of the consequences came from Smalls' initial trespass to land. He should be liable for all of the consequences.This wouldn't fly in any court


Just my thoughts, and of course everything has a gray area. It just matters how you argue it.

alllucknotalent
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby alllucknotalent » Sun Sep 19, 2010 10:57 pm

thank you... definitely fun to read and think about

other than having no idea what IIED is, i picked up on the assault, battery, and trespass

Burger in a can
Posts: 1116
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:21 pm

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby Burger in a can » Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:31 am

alllucknotalent wrote:thank you... definitely fun to read and think about

other than having no idea what IIED is, i picked up on the assault, battery, and trespass


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentiona ... l_distress

(I had to look it up too)

User avatar
Teoeo
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby Teoeo » Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:39 am

I'm pretty sure you guys mean Battery when you say Assault because in that hypo the only possible "assault" is the threat, and that isn't actually an assault because there is no immediacy to it. Don't confuse crim law and tort terms =D

Burger in a can
Posts: 1116
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:21 pm

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby Burger in a can » Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:15 am

Teoeo wrote:I'm pretty sure you guys mean Battery when you say Assault because in that hypo the only possible "assault" is the threat, and that isn't actually an assault because there is no immediacy to it. Don't confuse crim law and tort terms =D


If you don't reread the hypo right now, I'll hit you with this statue.

User avatar
Teoeo
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby Teoeo » Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:27 am

Burger in a can wrote:
Teoeo wrote:I'm pretty sure you guys mean Battery when you say Assault because in that hypo the only possible "assault" is the threat, and that isn't actually an assault because there is no immediacy to it. Don't confuse crim law and tort terms =D


If you don't reread the hypo right now, I'll hit you with this statue.


ya ok, thats a conditional threat assault, but when whats her face is actually hit, that's a battery (although you can also sue for assault since you can have both).

GatorBait09
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:02 pm

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby GatorBait09 » Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:39 pm

Yeah, definitely a battery through transferred intent doctrine.

lawschooliseasy
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Intentional torts hypo.

Postby lawschooliseasy » Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:19 pm

Can anyone evaluate this answer? I didn't do all of the issues, because I didn't have time. Also, take it easy on causation, because we haven't covered it yet.

Smalls' Claims:


v. Mudibe


Assault


1.

intentional act 2) imminent apprehension 3) causation


1) Mudibe threatens to hit Smalls, evidencing his intent, then takes a clear action in furtherance of that threat: swinging the penis statue. 2) Smalls was watching Mudibe (otherwise he could not have ducked). This in conjunction with the threat he received earlier provides sufficient evidence that he was placed in reasonable apprehension of a physical contact. That he managed to duck is irrelevant, escape or defense does not excuse assault. Similarly, that Smalls may have been able to avoid the assault by complying with Mudibe's demand to lick the balls does not absolve Mudibe of liability; he had no right to impose such condition on Smalls.


Mudibe's council will argue self-defense and defense of property.

Self-defense

1) reasonable apprehension of a harm 2) proportional response.

Here Mudibe can argue that he was afraid of being battered by Smalls, having just broken through his window. Smalls' council will respond, more convincingly, that Smalls appeared frightened, not menacing when he entered the window (this suggests a defense of necessity for the trespass, but more information is needed). Furthermore, no direct action, aside from the initial trespass, was taken to indicate that Smalls intended to harm Mudibe. Furthermore, Smalls stood for a minute or two before Mudibe hit him. These facts combine to suggest that any threat Mudibe may have faced subsided, taking his right to self-defense along with it. On balance, the self-defense defense will fail.


Defense of Property

One may defend their property if they have 1) privileged to do so and 2) use reasonable force. 1) Mudibe would have been privileged to defend his property with force that was not likely to cause death or serious injury. However, one must demand an interloper to exit if it is reasonably possible to do so before exercising such force. Mudibe stood and talked to Smalls, giving him more than enough opportunity to leave the property. 2) If Mudibe can somehow prove that he was unable to demand Smalls' exit, his force was probably reasonable. The penis statue hit Darla in the stomach, suggesting that it probably was initially swung at a somewhat low height (as opposed to say, the head). Even if it was initially swung at Smalls' head and arched down, penis statues are liable to be blunt and curved, not particularly sharp and thus unlikely to cause death or serious injury.


On balance, the self-defense and defense of property defenses will fail


It should be noted that if either of these defenses prevail, they will absolve Mudibe of liability for Darla's battery, because self-defense will absorb the tortious intent.


Darla's Claims:


v. Brickthrower


(see Mudibe v. Brickthrower)


v. Mudibe


Battery


1.

intentional act 2) harmful or offensive contact 3) causation


1) Mudibe clearly threatens to hit Smalls if he does not lick his balls. When Smalls does not, Mudibe swings the statue at Smalls, a voluntary action in aggression for failing to comply with a demand. This intent can be transferred to Darla. 2) Darla is hit in the stomach with the statue, a contact a reasonable person would find offensive. If the statue contacted her clothing it still constitutes battery, as her clothes are customarily regarded as part of her body. 3) Darla was hit with the statue as a result of Mudibe's initial action. Butfor causation established.

On balance, Mudibe committed battery


Mudibe's Claims:


v. Darla


Assault


Assault is


1.

an intentional act 2) apprehension 3) causation


1) Darla raises her fist at Mudibe while walking towards him. Raising a fist while approaching somebody is a volitional movement that implies a physical threat to Madlibe. Context strengthens the intent element: after Madlibe hit Darla in the stomach, she has reason to want to batter him. 2) Madlibe probably suffered an apprehension of contact. If the court is implying the subjective standard, Madlibe can point to his fleeing Darla as evidence of apprehension. If the court is applying an objective standard, a reasonable person would be put in apprehension by an individual they accidentally harmed approaching with a raised fist. This is a battery inchoate, and liable to induce a reasonable person to fear a strike from Darla's fist. The fact that Mudibe fled is irrelevant to the claim, because an assault claim is not diminished based on the ability to defend oneself or flee. Similarly, her threat after Mudibe has begun to flee does not constitute part of the assault, as Mudibe's imminent apprehension had already passed.


3) If Darla had not raised her fist at Mudibe, he would not have suffered apprehension: butfor causation is established


Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

IIED is 1) extreme or outrageous conduct 2) intent or recklessness 3) severe emotional distress 4) causation


1) Darla's threat to get him while he sleeps probably won't be sufficiently extreme or outrageous to prevail in an IIED claim. Such threats are common after heated confrontations and are not liable to be taken 100% seriously. It was not repeated and is not accompanied by other evidence. This is an isolated incident that Mudibe should be expected to endure. Mudibe's council may point to the open-endedness and severity of the threat as exacerbating its severity. Regardless, the standard of extreme and outrageous conduct is quite high, and this will probably fail to meet it. 2) Darla probably intended to cause emotional distress or anguish to Mudibe. She makes a volitional threat, directed soley at Mudibe. Paired with the context in which she approached him in a threatening manner, it is logical to assume that she intends to inflict psychological distress on him. 3) IIED REQUIRES damages. No evidence here indicates Mudibe suffered emotional distress. Without such evidence, claim will fail.


4) No damages, hens no causation.


On balance, Darla did not commit IIED.


v. Brickthrower


Assault


1.

intentional act 2) imminent apprehension 3) causation


1) No information here indicates the brick was thrown in a manner intending to cause apprehension or another intentional tort that would establish transferred intent. Without such evidence, this claim will fail. However, if other circumstances prove intent 2) Mudibe and Darla could both argue imminent apprehension of being hit by the brick. In order to prevail they would have to demonstrate a real apprehension of being hit, not merely shock after the fact. Logic suggests that they would hear the window break, being in the same room, and turn their heads in time to watch it enter the window. Darla almost certainly has a claim, as the brick landed close enough to her to cause apprehension of contact. The strength of Mudibe's claim will depend on his proximity to the brick.

3) But for causation established, had the brick not been thrown there would be no apprehension.

Darla


On balance, brickthrower may have committed assault depending on intent.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LandMermaid and 7 guests