Hawaii Personal Injury Online Library

Intentional Torts

 

1. Battery
   1. Elements

                                                    i.     Contact

1.     Direct or Indirect.

2.     Must be caused by the D.

                                                  ii.     Harmful or Offensive

1.     Reasonable Person Test applies in determining whether it was harmful or offensive.

                                                iii.     Intent

1.     Purposeful desire or a substantial certainty it will occur.

2.     Cts are split

a.      Single intent

                                                                                                                i.     Only intend to cause the contact

b.     Dual Intent

                                                                                                                i.     Must intend both the contact and to cause the harm or offense.

3.     Transferred Intent applies to battery (as well as the other intentional torts, except for intentional infliction of emotional distress)

a.      Intent transfers when

                                                                                                                i.     A different tort is committed than intended

                                                                                                              ii.     Or, it was committed against a different person than expected.

                                                                                                            iii.     Or, it was a different tort and and different person than expected.

                                                                                                            iv.     Transfer across Ps is found in the restatement

                                                                                                              v.     Transfer across torts is generally applied by courts.

                                                iv.     This is the only tort in which the threat of this tort is in itself another tort:  assault.

2. Assault
   1. Intent

                                                    i.     Same as battery.

1.     Purpose or desire

2.     Substantial Certainty

3.     Transferred intent

2. Apprehension

                                                    i.     Reasonable Person test

                                                  ii.     Must be aware of Ds act.

                                                iii.     Not the same as fear, it is an expectation.

                                                iv.     Apparent ability to harm.

                                                  v.     Usually need act, not just words.

                                                vi.     Gray area of law

1.     Whether it is assault when the apprehension is not that you will be battered.  E.g. apprehension of land-slide.

3. Imminent

                                                    i.     Very near future, immediate

4. Harmful or offensive
5. Contact
2. False Imprisonment
   1. Intent

                                                    i.     Intent to confine

                                                  ii.     Purpose/deliberate

                                                iii.     Substantial Certainty

                                                iv.     Transferred Intent

                                                  v.     Consider: words, actions, circumstances

2. Confine

                                                    i.     Physical

                                                  ii.     Emotional (duress)

1.     There is no real choice to leave

3. Harm/Conscious

                                                    i.     P must actually feel confined

                                                  ii.     P must know he is confine

                                                iii.     He must be aware

                                                iv.     No safe or reasonable means of escape.

4. Trespass to Land
   1. Intent

                                                    i.     Intent to enter, not intent to trespass

                                                  ii.     Purposeful desire

                                                iii.     Substantial certainty

2. Mistake

                                                    i.     It is trespass as long as intended to enter the land.

3. Contact

                                                    i.     Direct

                                                  ii.     Indirect

1.     Make object or 3^rd person enter the land.

5. Trespass to Chattels
   1. Intent

                                                    i.     Purposeful desire

                                                  ii.     Substantial certainty

                                                iii.     Transferred intent

                                                iv.     Intent to interfere with exclusive possession of property

2. Mistake

                                                    i.     Not a defense

                                                  ii.     Accidental is a defense

3. Contact
4. Confinement

                                                    i.     Need not be permanent

5. Dispossession
6. Damages

                                                    i.     Actual damages are required.

                                                  ii.     Change in value, usually unfair to P.

6. Conversion
   1. Intent

                                                    i.     Intent to exercise control

                                                  ii.     No intent to cause harm necessary.

                                                iii.     Purposeful desire

                                                iv.     Substantial Certainty

                                                  v.     Transferred Intent

2. Mistake

                                                    i.     Is enough, but Accidental is Not

3. Control

                                                    i.     Dominion over someone else’s property.

                                                  ii.     Interference with someone else’s property rights.

7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
   1. Intent

                                                    i.     Must intent the conduct

1.     Unclear, whether must intend the severe distress as well.

                                                  ii.     Transferred Intent

1.     Only if family is present and had physical harm

                                                iii.     Purposeful or Substantial Certainty.

2. Reckless

                                                    i.     Reckless disregard is substitute for intent.

3. Extreme and Outrageous conduct

                                                    i.     It transcends all bounds of decency

1.     i.e. Misuse of authority

a.      language usually not, unless there is a special relationship.

b.     Aware of special sensitivity.

4. Damages

                                                    i.     Not presumes.

                                                  ii.     Must show actual severe emotional distress or physical harm associated with the distress.

 

Defenses to Intentional Torts

 

8. Consent
   1. Wants Or Reasonable Manifestation of Willingness

                                                    i.     Express Consent

1.     Words or writing

                                                  ii.     Implied

1.     Appearance

2.     Custom

3.     Silence, where there is a duty to speak

                                                iii.     Can be revoked

                                                iv.     Extent

1.     Consent to one thing, not anything

                                                  v.     Volitional Capacity

1.     i.e. Too young, can’t consent

                                                vi.     In sports

1.     A factor to consider is whether there is a rule prohibiting such a risk, if so, than it is less foreseeable that it would happen.

2.     Custom is another factor

a.      E.g. in basketball, fouling is against the rules, but it is the custom of the sport.

9. Self Defense
   1. Reasonable belief

                                                    i.     Apparent, not actual necessity

                                                  ii.     Reasonable mistakes are allowed.

2. Reasonable force

                                                    i.     What is the reasonably necessary force to prevent the harm.

                                                  ii.     If harm is not deadly, not allowed to use deadly force.

                                                iii.     Must withdraw if threat is gone.

                                                iv.     Restatement

1.     Must retreat if you can safely when deadly force or serious bodily injury is threatened.

2.     Don’t have to retreat if there is not a threat of deadly or serious bodily injury threatened.

10. Defense of Property
    1. Reasonable Need

                                                    i.     Must first give warning, may then use non-deadly force

                                                  ii.     Must be an apparent need.

2. Reasonable Force

                                                    i.     Deadly force is never reasonable unless there is a threat to life.

                                                  ii.     Can threaten deadly force, but can’t use it.

                                                iii.     Can use force to stop from fleeing, but can’t track them down.

                                                iv.     Life is more valuable than property.

11. Public Necessity
    1. Imminent Public Disaster

                                                    i.     Privilege to stay, destroy, damage, if reasonably believes it is necessary to avert an imminent public disaster.

                                                  ii.     You can even use force to stay if necessary.

                                                iii.     You have a limited property right for a temporary period of time.

2. No pay.

                                                    i.     Do not have to pay for any damages.

12. Private Necessity
    1. Imminent personal or property injury.
    2. Must pay

                                                    i.     Must pay for any damages

 

Negligence

 

13. Negligence
    1. Duty

                                                    i.     Reasonable Care

                                                  ii.     Reasonable Person Standard

2. Breach

                                                    i.     Failure to act reasonably or conform to reasonable person standard.

3. Cause

                                                    i.     Proximate Cause

1.     Close enough causal link between Ds act of negligence and the harm suffered.

4. Damages

                                                    i.     The actual damages suffered.

14. Duty
    1. Objective, not subjective standard of ordinary care
    2. Reasonable Person Standard
    3. Duty is constant, but degree of care may fluctuate

                                                    i.     Physical disabilities

1.     Duty measured against others with same disability.

                                                  ii.     Mental disabilities

1.     Duty measured against reasonable person without a mental disability,

a.      Exception:  If the disability comes on suddenly.

                                                iii.     Children

1.     Held to standard of reasonable child of same age.

2.     Exception

a.      If the child is engaging in an adult activity, then he is judged as an adult.

                                                iv.     Elderly

1.     Held to standard of adult, but will consider elder physical disabilities.

                                                  v.     Mental Disability

1.     Might be a defense if it is easy to prove.

                                                vi.     Custom

1.     Majority:  Relavant, but not dispositive.

15. Breach
    1. When an unreasonable risk of harm is created
    2. Hand Forumla

                                                    i.     If (Probabilty of injury) X (cost of injury) is less than (burden of prevention), then there is no Breach of duty.

                                                  ii.     If (Probabilty of injury) X (cost of injury) is more than (burden of prevention), than there is a Breach of duty.

                                                iii.     If burden is small, and the probability of a large injury is high, then there is a breach.

3. Just because it is not the safest thing to do, does not mean that it is negligence.
4. Must weigh the cost of the accident v. the cost of prevention to determine if there is negligence.
15. Negligence Per Se
    1. The P must be within the Class of people the statute was intended to protect.
    2. It must be the Type of Injury or harm that the statute is intended to prevent.
    3. Excuses for not complying

                                                    i.     Unaware of statute

                                                  ii.     Made a reasonable attempt to follow the statute

                                                iii.     Emergency

                                                iv.     Greater risk of harm

                                                  v.     Incapacity

4. No reasonable person test is needed for negligence per se.
5. Statutes are relevant but NOT dispositive.
6. Deciding the impact of a statute on negligence:

                                                    i.     Dispositive

1.     Professional standards

2.     Relevant statutes

                                                  ii.     Relevant, but not dispositve

1.     Custom

2.     Compliance with relevant statute

                                                iii.     Irrelevant

1.     Irrelavant Statutes

17. Res Ipsa Loquiter
    1. Means:  The Thing Speaks for Itself
    2. More likely than not that negligence occurred.
    3. There is an inference of negligence that can satisfy the Ps burden of proof (Maj.)
    4. (Min.)  A presumption that negligence occurred, Ds must prove otherwise.
    5. Elements

                                                    i.     Accident normally does not happen without negligence

                                                  ii.     The instrumentality which caused the injury was in the exclusive control of the defendant.

                                                iii.     Not due to the Ps conduct.

6. Helps the P get around an absence of facts.
17. Cause in Fact
    1. “But for” test

                                                    i.     But for the Ds actions would the harm have occurred?

                                                  ii.     This test is not applied to the extreme.

2. Substantial Factor Test

                                                    i.     Must apply when there are multiple negligent actors or contributing actions.

                                                  ii.     Juries must decide what the “substantial factor” was.

3. Both tests are accepted by the Restatement, courts differ on which test should be the primary and which should be the supplement test.
18. Proximate Cause
    1. Generally

                                                    i.     The law eventually cuts off liability after a certain amount of causes.

                                                  ii.     Must consider foreseeability.  Should not be liable for injuries that were unforeseeable.

                                                iii.     Just because there was a cause in fact, does not mean that the bad actor should be liable.

                                                iv.     This is a limitation on liability.

                                                  v.     Prevents a D from having to be too cautious so as to not be on the hook for the whole world.

2. Direct Cause

                                                    i.     As long as there is a direct cause, it doesn’t matter whether it was foreseeable.

3. Foreseeability

                                                    i.     Should not be liable for unforeseeable consequences of conduct.

                                                  ii.     Unforeseeable P:  No liability

                                                iii.     Unforeseeable Type of harm:  No liability

                                                iv.     Unforeseeable Manner of harm:  Yes, still liable.

                                                  v.     Unforeseeable Extent of harm:  Yes, still liable.

1.     Take the D as you find them.

2.     Egg Shell Skull Rule

                                                vi.     The harm must be within the risk.

                                              vii.     Exception:

1.     Fire Rule

a.      Cut off liability after a few houses, even though it was foreseeable that many more would burn.

4. Intervening Cause

                                                    i.     Intervening cause does not cut off liability.

                                                  ii.     If 3^rd parties negligence is unforeseeable, then there is no proximate cause.

                                                iii.     It must be determined if there was a superceding cause, which would cut off liability.

                                                iv.     Criminal Act

1.     If it was foreseeable, then the D is liable, if not, no liability.

                                                  v.     Negligence plus Unforseeability:  No Proximate Cause.

5. Superceding Cause

                                                    i.     Cuts off D’s liability

                                                  ii.     Superceding Cause if:

1.     Unforeseeable 3^rd party.

2.     Unforeseeable force

3.     Unforeseeable criminal act

4.     3^rd parties negligence is unforeseeable.

20. Limited Duty:  Misfeasance and Nonfeasance
    1. Though there is a moral duty to act, doesn’t mean that there is a legal duty.
    2. Can’t force people to risk harm in order to help someone.
    3. It is only wrong to harm someone, not to fail to benefit them.
    4. If you created a foreseeable risk, then you must act.
    5. Even if you were doing something nice, can’t just quit if you created a risk.
    6. Special relationships have a duty to each other, those in a common undertaking.
21. Landowner’s Duties
    1. Duty to Trespassers

                                                    i.     Trespasser is one who comes on land without permission.

                                                  ii.     Can’t wantonly or willfully injure anyone.

                                                iii.     No duty to warn of dangers.

                                                iv.     Basically, it is not possible to warn someone who comes unexpectedly.

                                                  v.     Landowner could be liable for an attractive nuisance.  E.g. swimming pool.

                                                vi.     Known Trespasser

1.     landowner has a duty to warn because he is aware.

2.     Duty to use reasonable care.

3.     Duty to warn of hidden artificial hazards.

                                              vii.     Child trespasser

1.     Duty to use reasonable care

2.     Duty to warn of artificial hazards.

3.     Duty to inspect/repair artificial hazards.

2. Duty to Licensee

                                                    i.     Licensee is one who has permission to enter the land for their own interest.

                                                  ii.     Duty to warn of hidden dangers.

                                                iii.     No duty to make safe/repair.

                                                iv.      Includes socials guests, anyone who is not there to economically benefit the homeowner.

                                                  v.     Sometimes reasonable care requires one to eliminate the risk, not just warn about it.

                                                vi.     Duty to warn of artificial hidden conditions.

                                              vii.     Duty to warn of natural hidden conditions.

3. Duty to Invitees

                                                    i.     Invitee is one who is there to economically benefit the landowner, there for business.

                                                  ii.     Duty to make safe, repair dangers.

                                                iii.     Includes anyone in a store, even those not there with the intention to buy.

                                                iv.     Criminal acts

1.     Stores must act reasonably

2.     Must protect invitees from foreseeable crime.

3.     Question of foreseeable crime is still being debated

a.      Some courts apply prior incidence rule

b.     Others apply the totality of circumstances rule.

4. Changes to Common Law

                                                    i.     Min. of courts are rejecting the 3 categories and just applying a “reasonable person” standard.

                                                  ii.     Arguments are:

1.     Should life and limb be less worthy of protection because of status on land?

2.     Courts argue stare decisis:  Its already been decided, so leave it alone.

5. Firefighter Rule

                                                    i.     Applies to all professional risk takers.

                                                  ii.     They are licensees

1.     Duty to warn, accomplished by the phone call.

                                                iii.     Land owner is liable for hidden dangers which were not part of the original purpose.

                                                iv.     Rule encourages people to call without worrying about being liable.

 

Defenses

 

22. Contributory Negligence
    1. If both parties are equally negligent, then the D should win.
    2. A P who is at all negligent is barred from recovery.
    3. Last Clear Chance

                                                    i.     This is a limit on the contributory negligence defense

                                                  ii.     If both are negligent, but the D had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, then the D is liable.

                                                iii.     Ps negligence doesn’t matter under last clear chance.

23. Comparative Negligence
    1. Both parties must pay for what they owe, the % of damage they caused.
    2. In accidents, people are liable if they did not mitigate the damages (i.e. seatbelts).
    3. Pure form

                                                    i.     P may recover even if 99% negligent

4. Modified form

                                                    i.     E.g. P can only recover if less than 50%

24. Assumption of Risk
    1. Someone voluntarily consents to take their chances the harm will occur.
    2. Express

                                                    i.     P manifest intent to absolve D of liability.

                                                  ii.     Doesn’t mena P wants risk to happen, just mean if it happens, can’t go after D.

                                                iii.     Ct:  contracts:  Must not be gross negligence, uneven bargaining power, public interest.

3. Implied

                                                    i.     If P voluntarily encounters a risk, there is no recover.

                                                  ii.     In assumption of risk, always consider whether the D was even negligent, also, did the benefits of the activity outweigh the risks.

4. The more you warn people, the more reasonable you are being.
5. When a danger is open and obvious, there is likely an assumption of risk.
6. Primary Assumption of Risk

                                                    i.     Implied.

7. Secondary Assumption of Risk

                                                    i.     Implied assumption of risk where the P is acting unreasonably.

25. Family Immunity
    1. Currently, no parental immunity
    2. Some courts:  kids can sue parents
    3. Most courts:  a child can sue a parent for injuries before the child was born.
    4. Some courts:  there is some parental immunity.

                                                    i.     There should be parental immunity in regards to how a parent raises a child.

5. Maj.  No spousal immunity.
6. Min.  Spousal immunity for specific situations.
7. Charitable immunites:  Used to be, basically, no more.

 

Multiple TortFeasors

 

26. Joint and Several Liability
    1. Rule:  Where there are several causes where the effects are not separable, then each of the Ds are jointly and severable liable for the entire damages.
    2. Joint liability

                                                    i.     You can sue any of the Ds who were partially liable for the damages.

3. Several Liability

                                                    i.     Having sued one D, you can still sue the others, just can’t get more than 100% of your damages.

                                                  ii.     Deep pockets end up paying the damages.

27. Multiple Tortfeasors
    1. Indivisible Injury

                                                    i.     Can’t tell which D caused the harm

2. Concerted Action

                                                    i.     Only one causes the injury, but the other is also liable.

                                                  ii.     E.g. dragracing

3. Enterprise liability

                                                    i.     Multiple Ds made product, can’t tell which one injured P.

                                                  ii.     Ds must prove who was at fault, or they are all on the hook.

4. Alternative Liability

                                                    i.     E.g. 2 hunters

                                                  ii.     Puts burden of proof on Ds, all liable unless they can prove otherwise.

                                                iii.      Courts do limit the liability to only two defendants, can’t burden more than that.

5. Market Share Liability

                                                    i.     Won’t be joint and severally liable, only liable for the damages as compared to their market share.

                                                  ii.     If D can prove that they were not negligent, then they are not liable, regardless of your market share.

                                                iii.     However, even if you can prove that your exact product was not the one that caused the damage, you are still liable if you were producing the same, dangerous, product.

28. Vicarious Liability
    1. Liability without fault.
    2. Respondeat Superior

                                                    i.     Employer-Employee relationship

                                                  ii.     Who is an employee?

1.     Factors to consider:

a.      Control

b.     Instrumentalities/tools

                                                iii.     When is an Employer liable for the employee’s torts?

1.     If the tort was committed within the “scope of employment”

2.     If the employee’s act was done at least in part to benefit the business