Intentional Torts
Purpose was to cause harm to person,
property, and/or economic rights
Negligence and strict liability
do not require intent
Slide 1
Chapter 5
WHAT ARE THE MOST COMMON
INTENTIONAL TORTS?
 Assault
 Trespass to land
 Battery
 Conversion
 False imprisonment
 Interference with
 Defamation
contractual relations
 Fraud
 Invasion of privacy
Slide 2
Chapter 5
Assault
Put another in reasonable fear of an offensive or harmful bodily
contact
NOT ACTUALLY TOUCHING.
 Words
 Gestures
Must include a display of force indicating a present ability to
carry it out.
The threat must be believable.
From the point of view of the VICTIM
Slide 3
Chapter 5
Assault or Not Assault?
Dr. Bruce Banner, known for his temper is walking
toward your car. Seeing how close you parked to
his car, he mouths the words, “I’m going to rip you
apart”.
While paintballing, your best friend raises and aims
her gun at you……
Leaning in to tell you a secret, your locker mate can’t
resist giving you a kiss – you feel very
uncomfortable
While working at your part-time job, a regular
customer comes in with an AirSoft gun and tells
you to empty the register.
Jostling to get on the train to Chicago, another
commuter touches you in an uncomfortable
manner
Slide 4
Chapter 5
Battery
Harmful or offensive touching of another.
An assault frequently precedes a battery.
When the victim is hit
without
warning from behind,
there is a battery
without an assault.
Slide 5
Chapter 5
Battery or Not Battery?
While enjoying the recent CLS Theater production, the person
seated behind you sneezes into your hair.
As a World-Class Frolf champion, your rival throws a disc at
your face when you are not looking.
As a World-Class Frolf champion, your greatest fan is
disappointed in your recent performance and spits in your
face.
As a MMA competitor, you enter the ring and lose…..while
receiving a broken nose and split lip
You play hockey. Your rival high-sticks you
and breaks your arm.
You catch a person breaking into your garage
and taking your golf clubs. You chase them
down, tackle them, and break their ankle.
Slide 6
Chapter 5
False Imprisonment
Intentional confinement against a persons' will/without
lawful privilege
Denied Liberty
by threat
by consent
Slide 7
Chapter 5
False Imprisonment
Police – Probable Cause?
Not False Imprisonment
Agree to be detained
Shopkeeper’s Privilege
Slide 8
Chapter 5
False Imprisonment or Not?
A burglar suspect sits voluntarily in a police car to describe his
actions over the last hour.
Elizabeth Smart, kidnap victim, believes if she tries to escape while at
a restaurant, harm will come to her family.
Merchants in many states have a privilege to detain a person if they
have a reasonable basis for believing the person was shoplifting.
Rod Blagojevich, sits in a Colorado prison for his conviction in
Illinois.
Slide 9
Chapter 5
Defamation
Statements about people can injure them. If a false statement
injures a person’s reputation or good name, it may
constitute the tort of defamation.
1. Slander
spoken.
2. Libel
printed.
Slide 10
Chapter 5
To be legally defamed:
1. The statement must be false.
2. The statement must be communicated to a
third person
3. The statement must bring the victim into
dispute, contempt, or ridicule by others.
Slide 11
Chapter 5
Legal Defamatory
In slander suits, you must show that
you have suffered an actual
physical loss, or damages, as a
result of the slanderous remark.
In libel suits you are presumed to
have suffered a loss, and so
these damages do not have to be
shown to the court.
Slide 12
Chapter 5
Exceptions to the law of defamation
1.
2.
3.
Slide 13
Legislators statements, even those made with malice, are
immune from liability if made during legislative meetings.
Judges, lawyers, jurors, witnesses, and other parties in
judicial proceedings are also immune from liability for
statements made during the actual trial or hearing.
Statements about public officials or prominent personalities
does not exist unless the statements were made with malice.
(The statement was known to be false or was made
with a reckless disregard for its probable falsehood.)
Chapter 5
Invasion of Privacy
A tort defined as the uninvited intrusion into an individual’s
personal relationships and activities in a way likely to cause
shame or mental suffering in an ordinary person.
1. Unnecessary publicity regarding personal matters (true or
false).
1.
2.
3.
4.
Slide 14
Two-way mirrors in the women’s restroom of a gas station.
Commercial exploitation of one’s name, picture, or
endorsement without permission.
Eavesdropping
Unauthorized opening of letters and telegrams.
Chapter 5
Not an Invasion of Privacy
Police can tap telephone lines secretly if they have a
warrant.
Public figures, such as politicians, actors, and
people in the news give up much of their right to
privacy when they step into the public domain.
Slide 15
Chapter 5
Trespass to Land
 Entry onto the property of
another without the owner’s
consent.
 Dumping garbage on the land of
another.
 Breaking the windows of a
neighbors house.
Intent is required to commit
the tort of trespass.
Slide 16
Chapter 5
Trespass to Land
If a person thought
they were walking on
their own property but
they were mistaken,
there would be a
trespass because
they intended to be
there.
Slide 17
Chapter 5
Conversion
Intentional interference with another’s
property
A thief is always a converter.
The innocent buyer
of stolen goods
is a converter.
(http://bit.ly/VN1b6D)
Slide 18
Chapter 5
Interference with Contractual Relations
Competition is good, but you have to play fair!
If a third party encourages the breaching party in any way, that
third party may be liable in tort to the non-breaching party.
1. Celebrity appearance contracts
2. Sale of property
3. False advertising
Not a breach of contract – but meddling in a contract
Slide 19
Chapter 5
What are the Elements required to
Prove Contractual Interference?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Slide 20
A valid contract or contractual relationships exists between the two
parties.
The third party tortfeasor had knowledge of the contract or
contractual relationship.
The third party intended to convince or induce one of the parties to
the contract to commit a breach.
The third party was not privileged or authorized in any way to induce
the breach
The contract was in fact breached.
The non-breaching party suffered some sort of measurable damages
Chapter 5
Fraud
Intentional or recklessly made
misrepresentation of an existing
important fact.
Purchasing a car with “low miles”, when the odometer was
changed.
Purchasing a home after being told that the finished
basement has never flooded.
Slide 21
Chapter 5
5 Elements of Fraud
(1) a false statement of a material fact
(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the
statement is untrue
(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the
alleged victim
(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the
statement
(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.
Slide 22
Chapter 5
Elements of a Tort
Duty
Breach
Injury
Causation
• To do or not do a certain action
• Failure to show proper care
• Must be proved
• The breach caused the injury
Violation of Duty (Breach)
Question of FACT for the jury/judge
 Must be proven to collect damages
 Intentional Tort – Actual intent to cause harm
 Negligence – Carelessness, no intent
 Strict Liability – no intent or carelessness needed
 More later…….
Elements of a NEGLIGENCE
Duty
Breach
Injury
Causation
• Reasonable Person Test
• Professionals are held to a higher degree
• Person’s actual conduct compared to a
Reasonable Person
• Were damages (costs) actually incurred?
• Is it reasonable logic that breach caused
injuries?
Defenses to Negligence
Contributory
 Old Common
Law
 If Plaintiff
contributed in
any amount –
NO Recovery
Comparative
Assumption of Risk
 Awarded
 Plaintiff, aware of
damages in
proportion to
their fault
risk, takes on risk
voluntarily
STRICT LIABILITY
A party is liable far all damages as a result of their dangerous
actions or products
Foreseeable harm
Products that come with warning stickers about obvious
hazards are labeled like that for a good reason; it protects the
manufacturer from lawsuits.
STRICT LIABILITY
 The differences are as follows: In regards to negligence, the
defendant has a duty to conform to a specific standard of
conduct, thereby protecting the plaintiff against an
unreasonable risk of injury. This is sometimes referred to as
the “reasonable person” standard.
 In regards to strict liability, however, the duty is not that one
is required to act as a reasonable person would have acted
under similar circumstances, but instead, Defendant has an
absolute duty to make safe that which is the subject of the
lawsuit.