MBE Torts - Intentional Torts

Voluntary act;

Intent to cause harm;

Causation; and

Resulting harm

Intent to cause a harmful result; or

Acting with knowledge that harm is substantially certain to result

Yes, if they have the requisite intent required for the tort.

If D intends to commit a tort but causes injury to a different victim OR commits a different tort than intended, original intent is transferred to the new victim/tort

Assault;

Battery;

False imprisonment; and

Trespass to chattels or land

An Intentional act; that causes harmful, unwanted, or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person

Touching either:

P’s body;

Something that has a close physical connection to P’s body (purse, pet on a leash); or

Creating circumstances that will harm P (e.g. putting water on stairs so P will fall)

Contact that:

Causes injury, pain, or any physical discomfort to P

Offends a reasonable person’s sensibilities

No

No, only that the contact would be

* offensive to a reasonable person; and

* D had the intent to cause the contact

Consent;

Self-defense;

Defense of property; and

Defense of others

Common law doctrine that makes D liable for all injuries/damages to P even if injuries are not reasonably foreseeable (i.e., you take P as you found them, even if P is more susceptible to harm than a typical person)

Intentional act by D that creates;

P’s reasonable apprehension;

Of imminent harmful or offensive physical contact; and

Causation

P is aware of D’s act; and

Reasonably apprehends imminent harmful or offensive contact

Yes, as long as P didn’t know D lacked the ability. If P knew that D lacked the ability, then no reasonable apprehension would exist.

Example: If D says “I’m going to kill you with this gun in my bag,” but doesn’t actually have a gun, there is still reasonable apprehension unless the plaintiff knows D doesn’t have a gun in the bag.

No, unless in conjunction with other threatening conduct or circumstances.

No, the P must fear immediate bodily harm

D intends to confine or restrain P in a bounded area (area where P has no reasonable means of escape);

D actually confines or restrains P in bounded area;

P knows or is harmed by confinement

Freedom of movement in all directions is limited with no reasonable means of escape.

Examples:

Use of physical barriers, duress, or threats

Invalid use of legal authority

Brainscape Law Academy

Rate this card a five if you don’t need to see it again.

Discover:

Our best tips on studying efficiently for the bar exam

How to deal with bar exam anxiety

How Brainscape’s bar exam flashcards were made (and continuously updated)

No

Yes

Unless D is not aware of P being trapped in the room.

Example: P gets trapped in the bathroom and D won’t let her out.

No, false imprisonment requires the intent to confine.

A shopkeeper is not liable for false imprisonment if she:

Has a reasonable suspicion that P has stolen goods;

Uses reasonable force to detain P; and

Only detains P for a reasonable time to confirm/deny the suspicion

⚠️ Note: Only non-deadly force allowed. Shopkeeper can be liable for P’s injuries if actions exceed scope of privilege .

Only briefly; duration is only important to determine damages

Only if P was unaware of his confinement. Proof of actual damages is not required if P was aware.

False assertion of legal authority. Form of false imprisonment.

D acts intentionally or recklessly;

With extreme and outrageous conduct; and

Causes P severe emotional distress

Conducts that exceeds all bounds tolerated by a civilized society. Must be much more than mere threats & insults; must shock the conscience.

No, unless:

D is an innkeeper, common carrier, or in position of authority (teacher, boss, etc); or

P is part of a particularly susceptible group (seniors, children, pregnant women, etc)

Level of emotional distress that is expected to adversely affect mental health. Substantial & lasting.

D intentionally or recklessly harmed a third party;

P was present at the scene and witnessed the event;

P was closely related to victim (i.e. immediate family);

D knew P was present and closely related; and

P suffers extreme emotional distress as a result

⚠️ Note: P does not need to prove the above elements if D's design or purpose was to cause severe emotional distress to P

D intentionally;

Physically invades P's real property

Intent to enter the land; D doesn't need to intend to interfere with P's property

Physical invasion by D

Object thrown/controlled by D

⚠️ Note: Smells, lights, sounds do not constitute trespass (but may be nuisance)

No

D intentionally;

Intermeddles or uses;

P's personal property (chattel); and

Causes damage or loss of use

D intentionally exercises dominion and control over P's property so as to deprive them of its use

No

Brainscape's "Hands-free" Bar Prep YouTube playlist

Brainscape's "Hands-free" Bar Prep Podcast

| Rate this card a five if you don't need to see it again.

Trespass to chattels:

Shorter in duration with less severe harm than conversion

Can only recover cost of repair or rental value

Conversion:

Significant interference that deprives P of use

P can recover the full value + replevin

Consent (express & implied);

Self-defense;

Defense of others;

Defense of property;

Necessity; and

Recapture

When P affirmatively communicates permission for D to act through words or writing.

Consent is negated when:

D's conduct exceeds the scope of consent;

P lacked capacity to consent; or

Consent was gained through duress or fraud

Reasonable inference that P consents through her conduct or custom (e.g. participating in boxing match)

Negated when conduct reasonably exceeds the scope of consent.

Yes, unless:

D knows that P is mistaken and exploits it; or

D is responsible for the mistake

D subjectively and reasonably believes harm is imminent; and

D uses proportional force to protect herself

Only when faced with intentional threats of death or grave bodily harm

⚠️ Note: Cannot be used to protect property

Generally no, unless in a retreat jurisdiction (e.g. Washington, DC)

Only if the other person responded to non-deadly force with deadly force.

No, D will be held liable if they harm bystanders by acting negligently during self-defense (e.g. shooting a gun into a crowded sidewalk)

Defendant is entitled to defend others as long as they have a reasonable belief that the person they are defending would be entitled to self-defense

Yes, as long as the mistake was reasonable

D is permitted to use reasonable, non-deadly force to prevent P from causing harm to D's personal or real property

Ask the trespasser to stop

⚠️ Note: Not required if D believes request is dangerous or useless

Privilege to trespass & use peaceful means to get back one's personal property from the wrongdoer

Only when in hot pursuit of person who has obtained possession wrongfully (i.e. tort is in progress)

⚠️ Note: Deadly force is not allowed

Yes, parents and educators may use reasonable force to discipline children (reasonableness depends on child's age and proportionality to the misbehavior)

Allows D to reasonably interefere with P's property to avoid a substantially greater harm (e.g. D damages P's fence to try and save P's burning house)

D destroyed or interfered with private property to protect the public from severe, imminent disaster

Yes, D is not liable for any damages to the property

When D interferes or trespasses on P's property to prevent personal harm or harm to a small number of people

No, property owner can still recover actual damages for harm done to the property (but not nominal or punitive damages)

True