Intentional Torts Against Persons Flashcards

A defendant, intending to frighten a plaintiff by swinging a baseball bat and stopping just short of the plaintiff's head, accidentally misjudges the distance and strikes the plaintiff, causing injury. Under the doctrine of transferred intent, which of the following intentional torts has the defendant most likely committed?

Answer: Battery, because the intent to commit an assault can be transferred to establish the intent for battery.

The doctrine of transferred intent applies when a defendant intends to commit one intentional tort but ends up committing another. [8, 9] In this scenario, the defendant intended to commit an assault (intentionally causing a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact). [4] However, the defendant's act resulted in an actual harmful contact, which constitutes a battery. The intent to commit the assault is 'transferred' to the battery, satisfying the intent element for that tort. [3, 8] Therefore, the defendant is liable for battery.

Which of the following is an essential element for a prima facie case of false imprisonment?

Answer: The plaintiff must be aware of the confinement or be harmed by it.

For a claim of false imprisonment, the plaintiff must prove: (1) an act of restraint by the defendant that (2) confines the plaintiff within a bounded area, and (3) the defendant's intent to do so. [20, 21] Crucially, the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 35 specifies that the plaintiff must be conscious of the confinement or be harmed by it. [21, 26] Physical harm, the use of physical force (threats are sufficient), and a specific duration of confinement are not required elements.

A prankster, as a joke, tells a friend that the friend's spouse has been in a serious car accident and is in critical condition at the hospital. The friend suffers a severe nervous breakdown upon hearing the news. Which intentional tort is the prankster most likely liable for?

Answer: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, because the conduct was extreme and outrageous and caused severe emotional distress.

The prankster is most likely liable for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED). The elements of IIED are: (1) an act by the defendant amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) intent on the part of the defendant to cause the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, or recklessness as to the effect of their conduct; (3) causation; and (4) damages (severe emotional distress). [24, 29] Fabricating a story about a loved one's serious injury is likely to be considered extreme and outrageous conduct that goes beyond all possible bounds of decency. [27] The prankster acted with at least recklessness as to the high probability of causing severe emotional distress, which resulted in the friend's nervous breakdown. [29]

A security guard at a department store observes a shopper place an expensive watch in her pocket. The guard stops the shopper just outside the exit and asks her to come to the back office. The shopper agrees. In the office, the guard locks the door and tells the shopper she cannot leave until she confesses. After ten minutes, the shopper, who is innocent, becomes extremely distressed. The store is most likely:

Answer: Liable for false imprisonment because the confinement exceeded the scope of the Shopkeeper's Privilege.

While the Shopkeeper's Privilege allows a store owner to detain a suspected shoplifter for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner for investigation, this privilege is limited. [12, 20] The guard's actions of locking the door and conditioning the shopper's release on a confession likely exceed what is considered a reasonable manner of detention. [20] The initial consent to go to the office was vitiated once the shopper was locked in and told she could not leave. This constitutes confinement without a reasonable means of escape, fulfilling the elements of false imprisonment.

To establish a prima facie case for the tort of battery, the plaintiff must prove all of the following EXCEPT:

Answer: That the defendant intended to cause actual injury or harm to the plaintiff.

A prima facie case for battery requires: (1) an act by the defendant; (2) intent to cause harmful or offensive contact; (3) harmful or offensive contact occurs; and (4) causation. [1, 10] The intent required is the intent to make contact, not necessarily the intent to cause injury. [1, 2] If the defendant intends to cause a contact that a reasonable person would find offensive, and that contact occurs, the intent element for battery is satisfied, even if no physical injury was intended or resulted.

During a heated argument, a man raises his fist and lunges toward a woman, stopping just an inch from her face. The woman, who was looking in the opposite direction and listening to music through headphones, was completely unaware of the man's actions. The man has committed:

Answer: No tort, because the woman was not aware of the threat.

An essential element of the tort of assault is that the plaintiff must have a reasonable apprehension (i.e., awareness) of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. [4, 15] Since the woman was unaware of the man's threatening gesture, she could not have been in apprehension of it. Therefore, the man is not liable for assault. He is also not liable for battery as no contact occurred. [10]