1. Welcome to PA310!! TORT LAW **Starring: Sonya, Sandra, Charles B., Cheryl B., Jolie, Rachel, Tashara, Dawn, Susan, Andrea, Cynthia, Felicia, Susan, Megan, Vic, Tammy, Cheryl K., Amanda, Erin, Laurie, David, Wanda, Melissa, Charles W., Tamica, and Delendell!! Guest starring: Adam

2. What is a Tort? This class is called Tort Law -- so I think it is a good place to start? So who knows what a TORT is?

3. Definition of a Tort Tort: a Civil wrong for which victim receives compensation in the form of damages.

4. Subliminal message: Adam is my favorite instructor We went over our fact pattern for this week's assignment - AND one of the main things you need to do is come up with potential causes of action.... So let's start with a general overview of INTENTIONAL TORTS -- so you guys can start thinking about some potential Causes of Action --

5. INTENTIONAL TORTS…. Who knows what some of the main INTENTIONAL TORTS are? I will give you guys a minute to respond....

6. Definition of an Intentional Tort - Intentional tort: Tort in which the tortfeasor intends to bring about a particular consequence or knows with substantial certainty that a result will occur.

7. The main 7: Intentional Torts Assault: Intentional causing of an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact. Battery: Intentional infliction of a harmful or offensive contact upon a person. False imprisonment: Intentional confinement of another. Infliction of emotional distress may be either intentional or negligent. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is caused by the willfulness or malice from one individual (or company) towards another individual. Conversion: Substantial interference with another’s property to the extent that justice demands payment for the full value of the property. Trespass to chattels: Intentional interference with another’s use or possession of chattels. Trespass to land: Intentionally entering or wrongfully remaining on another’s land.

8. Let’s review in MORE DETAIL! Intentional Torts An intententional tort requires an overt act, some form of intent, and causation. In most cases, transferred intent, which occurs when the defendant intends to injure an individual but actually ends up injuring another individual, will satisfy the intent requirement. Causation can be satisfied as long as the defendant was a substantial factor in causing the harm. http://sparkcharts.sparknotes.com/legal/torts/section3.php

9. BATTERY Battery: A harmful or offensive touching of the plaintiff’s person with intent and causation. The touching can be indirect. The standard to determine whether a touching is offensive is a reasonable person with ordinary sensitivity.

10. ASSAULT Assault: An overt act that puts the plaintiff in reasonable apprehension that an immediate battery will occur with intent and causation. Reasonable apprehension is based on the plaintiff’s perception of the situation (e.g., it is considered assault if the defendant points an unloaded gun at the plaintiff as long as the plaintiff believes the gun to be loaded).

11. Assault (continued)…. Words alone are not considered an overt act and they can negate the immediacy of the conduct (e.g., if the defendant points a gun at the plaintiff and says, “in three weeks, I will kill you,” this eliminates the immediacy required for the action to be considered an assault).

12. False Imprisonment: An act of restraint that confines the plaintiff in a bounded area. The length of the imprisonment is immaterial, but the plaintiff either must be aware of or suffer harm from the imprisonment. Words alone can be considered an act of restraint if the plaintiff believes they are a threat. An act of restraint can also occur through omission if specific preexisting conditions apply (e.g., if a prison guard refuses to release a prisoner at the end of his or her sentence, the guard has committed an act of restraint.) SOUNDS Like our fact pattern, right!?!? ;)

13. False Imprisonment (continued) For an area to be considered bounded, the plaintiff must be confined in all directions and there cannot be a reasonable means of escape that the plaintiff can reasonably discover.

14. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: For this claim to be supported, the plaintiff must prove that he or she suffered damages due to extreme distress. The defendant must have engaged in outrageous conduct (conduct that exceeds all bounds of decency) with intent or recklessness and causation. Generally, courts are more likely to find that outrageous conduct has occurred if the plaintiff is a member of a fragile class of persons (e.g., very old or very young), there is continuous conduct, the conduct occurs in public, or the defendant is an innkeeper or common carrier.

15. Trespass to land: Trespass to land: Occurs when the defendant physically invades the plaintiff’s land with intent and causation. Any physical entry on the land, no matter how small, meets the standard. An intangible invasion (e.g., smell) is not considered a trespass (although, intangible invasion may be recoverable under nuisance law). The invasion can occur on the surface or a reasonable distance above or below the surface of the land. The defendant does not need to be aware that he or she crossed onto plaintiff’s land; he or she must only have the intention to be on the challenged location. Unintentional entry (e.g., sleepwalking) does not count.

16. Trespass to chattel Trespass to chattel: Occurs when the defendant interferes with the plaintiff’s right of possession of chattel. The plaintiff must prove actual damage to the chattel. Chattel: A personal article of property. Unlike real property, it is moveable. Chattel can be animate (e.g., the family pet) or inanimate.

17. CONVERSION Conversion: Occurs when the defendant’s interference with the plaintiff’s chattel is so egregious that the chattel is practically destroyed or it is never returned to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not required to prove damages. In a successful claim, either the plaintiff can recover compensatory damages based on the fair market value of the chattel or the court can order replevin (return of the chattel to the plaintiff).

18. D-Fence There are also DEFENSES to Intentional Torts: A defense is the counter-argument if you are accused of committing an offense.

19. Defenses (continued) Protection: Includes self-defense, defense of others, and defense of property. They are only available if the defendant acts during the event, and exercises a reasonable degree of force under the circumstances. Deadly force is allowed in self-defense or defense of others only out of necessity. Deadly force is not permitted for defense of property, but threats of deadly force are allowed. Self–defense: The defendant must reasonably believe he or she is in danger. Mistakes are allowed as long as the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable. Defense of others: To support a claim of defense of others, the individual the defendant was protecting must actually have been in danger. Mistakes are not allowed even if the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable. Defense of property: Defense of property claims require a reasonable belief of injury. As discussed above, deadly force, including traps set on property, is never permissible for defense of property.

20. Consent is another defense Consent: This is generally a complete defense to an intentional tort as long as it is an effective consent. To be effective, the consent must not have been coerced or gained under false or mistaken pretenses, and the individual giving consent must have the capacity to do so. In many jurisdictions, there are certain actions to which no individual can give legal consent (e.g., injury from mutual combat). Minors, mentally incompetent individuals, and intoxicated individuals generally do not have the capacity to consent, but a legal authority for an incapacitated individual (e.g., parent or guardian) can have a limited power to consent.

21. Necessity is yet another Defense Necessity: Occurs when the defendant invades the plantiff’s property in an emergency situation. This is only a defense for intentional torts related to property. There are two types of necessity. Public necessity: Occurs when the invasion is designed to protect the community. The public necessity defense is a complete bar to recovery. Private necessity: Occurs when the invasion is to preserve the defendant’s own interest. The private necessity defense is limited. The defendant does not have to pay nominal or punitive damages, but is responsible for any property damage caused by his or her actions. In a private necessity, the plaintiff cannot force the defendant to exit the land until the emergency is over.

22. Katko v. Briney (case from the eBook – that we will review) Here are the facts: Plaintiff Katko and a friend broke into the Brineys unoccupied farm house with the intention of stealing some old bottles and dated fruit jars, which they considered to be antiques. Previous to this break in, the defendants farm house had, at various times, been vandalized, broken into and some household items had been stolen from it by person or persons unknown. About five weeks prior to the break in by Katko and his companion, Mr. Briney had rigged a shotgun in one of the farm house bedrooms so that it would go off when the bedroom door was opened from the outside. The shotgun was pointed in such a way so that when it was triggered the shot would likely strike an intruder in the legs. On the night of the break in, Katko opened the bedroom door and was shot in the leg by the shotgun trap, suffering serious injuries for which he was hospitalized. Briney eventually plead guilty to larceny in the nighttime of less than twenty dollars. He then filed this lawsuit.

23. The issue in the case is…. Issue Can an owner employ deadly force to protect personal property in an unoccupied dwelling from trespassers and thieves by the use of a spring gun capable of inflicting serious or mortal injuries?

24. The Decision in this case was: No, deadly force cannot be used solely to protect land or other property unless there is a concurrent threat to the owners life or safety, which in itself, would justify the use of deadly force in self defense.

25. Here is why…. It is well established principle of law that there is no privilege (or defense) to use deadly force solely in defense of land or property unless there exists a threat to ones personal safety as well.

26. The reasoning in this case was: In applying the above rule, the Iowa Supreme Court determined that the deadly force posed by Brineys shotgun trap was not warranted to protect unoccupied property. Briney would have been justified in using deadly force if he had been in the house at the time of the burglary and if he feared his life was in danger.