6/28/12
American Tort Law Lawrence Siry larrysiry@gmail.com Overview of the semester •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inten;onal Torts Negligence Causa;on Strict Liability Products Imputed Liablity Defama;on Damages Why Torts •
•
•
•
Reasons of Regula;on Sources of Law History Modern Applicability •  Idea of Fault 1
6/28/12
Historical Perspec;ve •  Trespass v. Trespass on case •  Writs of Trespass -­‐ •  Criminal nature •  Breach of Kings Peace •  Writ of Trespass on case (remember Assumpsit?) •  Catch all (where we get most tort law today) Historical Perspec;ve •  Why have Tort? Historical Perspec;ve •  Weaver v. Ford (1616) –  Luna;ck –  Limita;on on liability where no negligent act •  Brown v. Kendall (1850) (MA) –  2 dogs figh;ng –  If, in the prosecu;on of a lawful act, a casualty, purely accidental arises, no ac;on can be supported for an injury arises therefrom. –  Ordinary Care? 2
6/28/12
Historical Perspec;ve •  Brown v. Kendall (1850) (MA) Historical Perspec;ve •  Cohen v. PeYy (1933 DC) –  Autofaint •  Spano v Perini (1969 NY) –  Brooklyn Blas;ng –  Absolute liability for blas;ng without negligence? Inten;onal Tort •
•
•
•
•
Assault BaYery False Imprisonment Trespass Inten;onal Inflic;on of Emo;onal Distress 3
6/28/12
Inten;onal Tort •  Assault –  Assault occurs when the defendant acts to inten;onally cause the vic;m's reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. Inten;onal Tort •  Assault •  BaYery –  defendant acts to inten;onally cause harmful or offensive contact with the vic;m s person. Accidental contact, by contrast, must be analyzed under negligence or strict liability. –  While baYery requires intent, tort defini;on does not require an intent to harm. It is only necessary that the defendant intend to cause either harmful or offensive contact. Inten;onal Tort •  Assault •  BaYery •  False Imprisonment –  Defendant unlawfully acts to inten;onally cause confinement or restraint of the vic;m within a bounded area. –  Accidental confinement is not included and must be addressed under negligence or strict liability. 4
6/28/12
Inten;onal Tort •
•
•
Assault BaYery False Imprisonment •  Trespass (ChaYel and Property) •  Trespass to chaYel is the inten;onal interference with the right of possession of personal property. The defendant's acts must inten;onally damage the chaYel, deprive the possessor of its use for a substan;al period of ;me, or totally dispossess the chaYel from the vic;m. Inten;onal Tort •
•
•
Assault BaYery False Imprisonment •  Trespass (ChaYel and Conversion) –  an inten;onal exercise of dominion and control over a chaYel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chaYel. Inten;onal Tort •
•
•
•
Assault BaYery False Imprisonment Trespass •  Inten;onal Inflic;on of Emo;onal Distress –  when the defendant, by extreme and outrageous conduct, inten;onally or recklessly causes the vic;m severe mental distress. •  physical manifesta;ons of the mental distress generally not required. •  beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious, and uYerly intolerable in a civilized community. Restatement 46. 5
6/28/12
Inten;onal Tort •
•
•
•
•
Assault BaYery False Imprisonment Trespass Inten;onal Inflic;on of Emo;onal Distress Assault and BaYery: Intent •
•
•
•
Grant v. Dailey (1955-­‐ Musical Chairs) Spivey v. BaYaglia (1972-­‐ FL Hugs v. Kiss) Ranson v. Kitner (1885 IL) (wolf dog) McGuire v. Almy (1937 MA) (rich loon) •  Talmage v. Smith (M1894 Mich )(Eye poke) 6
6/28/12
BaYery •  Cole v. Turner (1704 England) BaYery •  Restatement Sec. 13 BATTERY: HARMFUL CONTACT •  An actor is subject to liability to another for baYery if: •  he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person or am imminent apprehension of such a contact and an harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results. BaYery •  Sec. 18 BATTERY: OFFENSIVE CONTACT •  An actor is subject to liability to another for baYery if: –  he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person or am imminent apprehension of such a contact and an offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results. –  Indirect baYery has been found when blowing smoke in a person's was inten;onal and has par;culate maYer capable of contact. 7
6/28/12
BaYery •  Fisher v. Carrousel MoYor In (1967 TX) (NASA) Assault –  Assault occurs when the defendant acts to inten;onally cause the vic;m's reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. Assault –  Assault occurs when the defendant acts to inten;onally cause the vic;m's reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. 8
6/28/12
Assault Western Telegraph v. Hill (1933 AL) •  Wes False Imprisonment –  Defendant unlawfully acts to inten;onally cause confinement or restraint of the vic;m within a bounded area. –  Accidental confinement is not included and must be addressed under negligence or strict liability. False Imprisonment •
•
•
•
Big Town Nursing v. Newman (1970 TX) Pavi v. City of Kingston (1977 NY) Hardy v. LaBelle (1983 Mont.) Enright v. Groves (1977 CO) 9
6/28/12
False Imprisonment WhiYacker v. Sandford (1912 Me) (cult yacht) Inten;onal Inflic;on of Emo;onal Distress •  State Rubbish Collectors Ass n v. Siliznoff (1952 CA) •  Garbage routes •  Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida (1958 Fl) –  You sEnk! Inten;onal Inflic;on of Emo;onal Distress •  Harris v. Jones (1977) •  For inten;onal inflic;on of emo;onal distress: –
–
–
–
1) the conduct must be inten;onal or reckless; 2) the conduct must be extreme and outrageous; 3) the wrongful conduct must cause the distress; and 4) the emo;onal distress must be severe. 10
6/28/12
Trespass •  Dougherty v Stepp (1835) •  Tort v. Liability for damages •  Bradley v. American SmelEng and Refining Co (1985) –  SmelEng –  Nuisance v. trespass Trespass •  Herrin v. Sutherland (1925) •  Air rights Trespass to chaYels •  Glidden v. Szybiak (1949) •  (Dog pulled ears) •  One who non-­‐consensually uses or interferes with a chaYel of another is guilty of trespass if the chaYel is damaged, the possessor is deprived of use for a substan;al ;me, or bodily harm is caused by the interference. 11
6/28/12
conversion •  Pearson v. Dodd (1969) –  Senators papers •  Russell Vaughn Ford v. Rouse (1968) –  Crybaby car 12