Intentional Tort Questions

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
PhillyCheesesteak
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:03 pm

Intentional Tort Questions

Postby PhillyCheesesteak » Sun Sep 23, 2012 8:42 am

I'm studying for an ungraded intentional-tort mid term tomorrow, and have been working on hypos all weekend. A few have tripped me up, so I'm coming to TLS.

P knocks over his beer accidentally, spilling it on D. D, infuriated, lunges over the table, attempting to punch P. P eludes the punch by retreating; in the process, though, P trips and breaks his arm.

So in above, would D be liable for P's injuries? I'm unsure of intent and causation here. D intended to make a contact with P, and he intended for that contact(punch) to be harmful (dual). However, he did not intend for P to trip an break his arm.

And what about causation? D caused P's retreat, which resulted in P's broken arm. However, D did not deliberately stick his foot out, tripping P.

I'd probably argue that this was a battery. If I'm wrong, please tell me why. Thanks all

I may be stopping by periodically with any additional hypo questions

PhillyCheesesteak
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:03 pm

Re: Intentional Tort Questions

Postby PhillyCheesesteak » Sun Sep 23, 2012 9:11 am

For above, can you argue that D's assault caused P's injuries? Assault damages only relate to mental anguish though, not physical, right?

User avatar
Jsa725
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:20 pm

Re: Intentional Tort Questions

Postby Jsa725 » Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:25 am

.
Last edited by Jsa725 on Wed May 07, 2014 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

PhillyCheesesteak
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:03 pm

Re: Intentional Tort Questions

Postby PhillyCheesesteak » Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:48 am

Jsa725 wrote:Analysis is where the bulk of the points will come from. I would argue both sides (why it is or is not a battery) to get the most points.

FWIW, my professor would probably give this problem 10 points and give extra 5 -10 for making some poignant observations
Even though P could have used non life threatening force to defend himself, he a acted like a reasonable person by attempting to retreat. (Rs.2d Torts §63)

HTH.


Definitely helps. I suppose I'm just looking for a yes/no answer, and reasoning as to why its yes or no. H/e I guess there is no clear cut answer for this hypo.

anyone want to take on the assault will make D liable for P's broken arm (eggshell skull) analysis. Is that right or wrong? Is D only liable for mental damages resulting form assault??

User avatar
Jsa725
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:20 pm

Re: Intentional Tort Questions

Postby Jsa725 » Sun Sep 23, 2012 11:17 am

.
Last edited by Jsa725 on Wed May 07, 2014 9:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

PhillyCheesesteak
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:03 pm

Re: Intentional Tort Questions

Postby PhillyCheesesteak » Sun Sep 23, 2012 11:56 am

See, i took indirect to be "putting a force in motion," like setting up a trip wire. But under you're analysis, that is definitely arguable.

maudio129
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:08 pm

Re: Intentional Tort Questions

Postby maudio129 » Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:10 pm

I'll try the hypo out, don't know if i'm right thought...

D v. P (Battery)

D will most likely argue that P should be liable for battery because P's drink spilled on his person. In order for P to be liable for battery, D must prove that, P 1) acted with intent, 2) to make with contact P, and 3) the contact was harmful or offensive. While there was contact, the beer touching D's person, and the contact was offensive, it would offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity to have beer spilled on them, D will not be able to prove a prima facie case of battery because there was no intent. While P have been negligent in spilling the beer, a battery claim will most likely not succeed in court.

P v. D
Battery
P will argue that D should be liable for battery; the intentional infliction of harmful or offensive bodily contact. D will argue that there can be no battery cause of action because there was NO CONTACT AT ALL with P. However, skin to skin contact is not necessary; as long as D sets in forth a motion which produces the tortious conduct, then D will be liable for battery. However, if this case went to court, P would most likely not be able to prove a prima facie case for battery because no contact ensued from D's conduct.

Assault
P will bring an assault charge against D because P apprehended an imminent contact, D's hand flying through the air coming towards him. To be liable for assault, (S 21 r2d), D must act, intending to cause an apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with P's person. First, D acted with intent because he desired that certain consequences would result from his actions. Second, D's apprehension of the contact was reasonable because a reasonable person in the circumstances of P would have dodged out of the way in order to avoid being punched by a rather angry bargoer (I don't know if that is a word or not--probably not).

(My class has not yet covered causation, but in the assault charge--P v. D--D was the but-for cause of P's injuries, and the proximate cause of P's injuries. Moreover, I would bring in the case of Vosburg v Putney and argue that while D did not intend to cause any SERIOUS OF LIFE THREATENING injuries to P, he did intend to make contact and apprehension with P, and the since the law protects people to be free from apprehension of unwanted and unpermitted contacts, D will be liable for all of P's resulting injures, whether he intended them or not--Putney did not intend to harm P, but was liable for all of his resulting injuries).

Moreover, I'm confused with why the person above me mentioned self-defense. Section 63 does not say anything about retreating before using NON-DEADLY force. However, section 65 states an actor must retreat, if feasible and safe to do so, BEFORE standing his/her ground and using DEADLY FORCE. If when D's hand was flying through the air, aimed right at P, P would undoubtedly have the privilege to use REASONABLE force in self-defense because 1) he was defending himself against a harmful or offensive contact, P's punch, 2) which he reasonably believed that D was about to inflict upon him.

Hopefully this helped a little bit. I guarantee that I missed some issues, or reasoned wrong in some places, but it was good practice.

User avatar
Jsa725
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:20 pm

Re: Intentional Tort Questions

Postby Jsa725 » Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:12 pm

.
Last edited by Jsa725 on Wed May 07, 2014 9:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Jsa725
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:20 pm

Re: Intentional Tort Questions

Postby Jsa725 » Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:16 pm

.
Last edited by Jsa725 on Wed May 07, 2014 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

PhillyCheesesteak
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:03 pm

Re: Intentional Tort Questions

Postby PhillyCheesesteak » Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:23 pm

Thanks fellas, both responses helped. I'm more confident now in my lack of answer, because this question seems to actually lack a definite answer- its all about the analysis. Anyway, you guys cite restatements in your answers, how necessary is this on an exam do you think? Especially closed book?

User avatar
Jsa725
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:20 pm

Re: Intentional Tort Questions

Postby Jsa725 » Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:27 pm

.
Last edited by Jsa725 on Wed May 07, 2014 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

maudio129
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:08 pm

Re: Intentional Tort Questions

Postby maudio129 » Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:32 pm

Jsa725 wrote:
PhillyCheesesteak wrote:Thanks fellas, both responses helped. I'm more confident now in my lack of answer, because this question seems to actually lack a definite answer- its all about the analysis. Anyway, you guys cite restatements in your answers, how necessary is this on an exam do you think? Especially closed book?


I would visit office hours b/c each professor is different.


I agree. However, if two people wrote the exact same answer and one quoted the relevant section(s) of the restatement and the other did not, I would "think" that the former answer would get more points.

User avatar
jre425
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: Intentional Tort Questions

Postby jre425 » Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:50 pm

We were given an identical hypo. There was clearly assault by the guy attempting to punch him, imminent apprehension of harmful contact, and as a result of the assault Plaintiff fled in a reasonable manner to avoid the contact. The intent of the assault would transfer to the battery. Intent can transfer to all of the intentional torts. You could argue the side to gain more points in this case that the fleeing was in a unreasonable manner, I would see that as the point of contention. But overall it seems like its an assault and battery. Also you could bring up the theory in Tort law that between the tortfeaser and the injured party we want the tortfeaser to pay instead of the injured party.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests