Intentional Torts Hypo

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
brickman
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:59 am

Intentional Torts Hypo

Postby brickman » Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:48 pm

Spot them issues

http://www.scribd.com/doc/72515971/Exam-Intentional-Torts-Only

I had a really fucking hard time on this one for some reason. I could spot the issues, but just had extreme difficulty articulating. Anyone wanna hold my hand?

User avatar
AlexanderSupertramp
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Intentional Torts Hypo

Postby AlexanderSupertramp » Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:58 pm

I'll play. My baby isn't going to sleep any time soon. Which issues do you need help articulating?

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Intentional Torts Hypo

Postby ph14 » Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:12 am

Disrepair of fence -- possible negligence per se or negligence;
Bob/car driver -- possible negligence of driving while sleep-deprived; possible negligent infliction of emotional distress; possible assault to Walt; assault/battery/negligence to the kid
restaurant worker(1) -- assault/battery (likely no intent); negligence in spilling the coffee (damages issue -- can you get damages for purely emotional harm? or is there a physical hook here?)
restaurant worker (2) -- assault/battery in throwing the coffee? (no battery because no contact most likely, have to distinguish car from something more intimate like a camera); trespass to chattels (probably didn't impede the use of his car by throwing coffee on it); negligence to the kid; negligence in transporting alice; negligence in driving to the hospital/running the stop sign;

then there's a sticky causation issue/superseding causes with the spilled coffee which caused the car to slide out through the negligently maintained fence and hit the kid;

plus all the damages issues, including the hard one with Alice and her 50/50 chance of a stroke

User avatar
DocHawkeye
Posts: 640
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:22 am

Re: Intentional Torts Hypo

Postby DocHawkeye » Sun Nov 13, 2011 10:41 am

ph14 wrote:Disrepair of fence -- possible negligence per se or negligence;
Bob/car driver -- possible negligence of driving while sleep-deprived; possible negligent infliction of emotional distress; possible assault to Walt; assault/battery/negligence to the kid
restaurant worker(1) -- assault/battery (likely no intent); negligence in spilling the coffee (damages issue -- can you get damages for purely emotional harm? or is there a physical hook here?)
restaurant worker (2) -- assault/battery in throwing the coffee? (no battery because no contact most likely, have to distinguish car from something more intimate like a camera); trespass to chattels (probably didn't impede the use of his car by throwing coffee on it); negligence to the kid; negligence in transporting alice; negligence in driving to the hospital/running the stop sign;

then there's a sticky causation issue/superseding causes with the spilled coffee which caused the car to slide out through the negligently maintained fence and hit the kid;

plus all the damages issues, including the hard one with Alice and her 50/50 chance of a stroke


Intentional torts only, right?

User avatar
DocHawkeye
Posts: 640
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:22 am

Re: Intentional Torts Hypo

Postby DocHawkeye » Sun Nov 13, 2011 11:16 am

This is how I would structure my answer:

I. Intent generally
II. Bob’s Torts
A. Battery against Alice – actor need to touch the victim so long as the harmful contact is the result of the actor’s actions, those results need not be foreseeable
B. Assault against Sam – he saw the car coming toward him
C. Battery against Sam – contact need not be harmful, just offensive
D. Trespass to Land against the school
E. Trespass to Chattels (perhaps conversion) against the school – destroying the fence
III. Alice’s Torts
A. Battery against Bob – the spilling of the coffee, offensive contact
B. No Assault against Bob – He was not aware of the impending contact
IV. Walt’s Torts
A. Assault against Bob – Bob was aware of the thrown coffee pot
B. Battery against Bob – The coffee pot struck the car. Harmful contact need not be with the person himself. Contact with clothing or items attached to the person can constitute battery
C. Trespass to Chattels against Bob – the coffee stained the paint on the car, impairing its value
D. False Imprisonment Against Alice – She was harmed by her non-consensual restraint in his car
V. Defenses
A. Bob: Self Defense against Alice
B. Walt: Self Defense against Bob
C. Walt: Necessity against Alice

User avatar
brickman
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:59 am

Re: Intentional Torts Hypo

Postby brickman » Sun Nov 13, 2011 7:42 pm

ph14 wrote:Bob/car driver -- possible negligent infliction of emotional distress;


How would you describe his behavior as negligent w/r/t alice?

User avatar
DocHawkeye
Posts: 640
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:22 am

Re: Intentional Torts Hypo

Postby DocHawkeye » Sun Nov 13, 2011 8:18 pm

brickman wrote:
ph14 wrote:Bob/car driver -- possible negligent infliction of emotional distress;


How would you describe his behavior as negligent w/r/t alice?


Why are you even considering negligence on an intentional torts exam?

User avatar
brickman
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:59 am

Re: Intentional Torts Hypo

Postby brickman » Sun Nov 13, 2011 8:47 pm

DocHawkeye wrote:
brickman wrote:
ph14 wrote:Bob/car driver -- possible negligent infliction of emotional distress;


How would you describe his behavior as negligent w/r/t alice?


Why are you even considering negligence on an intentional torts exam?


i'm not, I was just curious in thinking about it. I appreciate your correction in sorting out for intentional torts, very much appreciated.

User avatar
brickman
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:59 am

Re: Intentional Torts Hypo

Postby brickman » Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:11 pm

also, looking at this from a negligence perspective, this is a real bastard w/r/t to the second workers act.

reasonableness takes into consideration external circumstances such as emergency, but this is only an apparent emergency, he subjectively believes that he is going to get killed, but would a reasonable person believe there is an emergency? I guess this is closely tied to the self-defense question in terms of whether or not there was a reasonable fear of injury.

Also another bastard of a question in the intentional torts part is whether or not the use of force was reasonable. considerations of emergency circumstances here? confusing as all fuggin hell.


also, looking at the negligence to the boy by the employee, i taste palsgraf!




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests