Intentional Torts & Negligence - Elements

1. Voluntary act 2. Intent to touch 3. Touch results 4. Intent to cause harm or offense 5. Harm or offense occurs

1. Inferrence based upon actions - Snyder v. Turk 2. Knowlege with substantial certainty - Garratt v. Dailey 3. Lack of consent - Mullins v. Parkview Hospital 4. Purpose to harm or offend - Restatement (throwing stone into a crowd) 5. Transferred intent - Stoshak v. East Baton Rouge Parish School

1. Voluntary act 2. Intent to cause apprehension (objective standard) 3. Apprehension (fear or awareness of battery) results 4. of imminent or impending nature 5. Apprehension causes harm or offense

1. Cullison v. Medley - family breaks into a man's trailor and threatens him with a gun. D later threatens P in a store. 2. Dicken's v. Puryear - a group of men beat and threaten to castrate and kill another man but use conditional language, which negated the imminency requirement of assualt. 3. Raess v. Doescher - man pushes doctor up against a wall and pretends to throw a punch but stops short of impact, then leaves.

1. Intentional 2. Confinement (within a limited area) 3. of another 4. Without privelege or consent 5. For an appreciable time 6. Victim concsious of or harmed thereby

1. McCann v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Lady and her children detained by security under color of law for suspected shoplifting. Her kid was confined for 10 minutes and not allowed to use the restroom. 2. Shen v. Leo A Daly Co. - man prevented from leaving Taiwan, not enough for false imprisonment, which involves a limited range of movement. 3. Thorsen v. Kaufmann's Department Stores - D grabs a woman's pants from a dressing room because he suspects she is attempting to shoplift. The woman wishes to leave a department store but does not want to leave without her pants. Duress of goods is not enough to establish false confinement. 4. Fuerschbach v. Southwest Airlines Co. - Officers were held liable for false confinement by participating in a practical joke to stage a false arrest of an airline employee. 5. Hunter v. The Buckle, Inc. - D held liable for false confinement for inducing an officer to unlawfully detain another.

State of Maryland v. Dett - A woman was arrested on an oustanding warrant and detained for four days before release, even though the officer knew shortly after arrest that the woman held was not the woman that the warrant described.

1. Intentional act (single intent - deliberate) 2. Entry 3. Upon land 4. Of Another

1. To establish substantial dominion 2. Over the chattels of another 3. With intent to convert to "own use"

Damages for the entire value of the chattels converted.

1. Extent and duration of control 2. D's intent to assert a right to property 3. D's good faith 4. The harm done to chattels 5. Expense or inconvenience caused

School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz - a former employee caused large volumes of pornographic emails and unsolicited job applications to be sent to P, thereby, severly limiting P's hard disk space and drained processing power. The court held that these facts, if true, would constitute a valid claim for trespass to chattels by harming "a materially valuable interest in the phyical condition, quality, or value of the chattel" or depriving owner of the use thereof for "a substanial time."

1. Duty of care 2. Breach of duty 3. Harm results 4. Actual cause 5. Proximate cause

A claim of negligence per se proves the first 2 elements of a negligence claim: duty of care and breach of duty.

1. The statute or regulation must clearly define the standard of conduct. 2. The statute or regulation must have been enacted with the intent to prevent the type of harm that occurred (resulting either from a negligent act or by ommission). 3. Plaintiff must be a member of the class of persons that the statute or regulation was designed to protect. 4. The violation of the statute or regulation must be the actual cause of the Plaintiff's injury.