11/3/10
1
¡PROF.  CRAIG CHARLES BELES
¡Seattle, Washington, USA

11/3/10
2
MAJOR  CLASSIFICATIONS  OF  TORT  LIABILITY
INTENTIONAL TORTS
ASSAULT
 BATTERY
  FALSE  IMPRISONMENT
TRESPASS  TO  LAND
  CONVERSION
 TRESPASS  TO  CHATTELS
(OUTRAGE)
PRIMA FACIE CASE:
VOLUNTARY  ACT,  INTENT,  CAUSATION,  RESULT

11/3/10
3
NEGLIGENCE – FAILURE  TO  ACT  AS  A  REASONABLE  PERSON  UNDER  THE  CIRCUMSTANCES

PRIMA FACIE CASE:
DUTY  TO  PLAINTIFF
STANDARD OF CARE
BREACH  OF  DUTY
CAUSE IN FACT
PROXIMATE CAUSE
INJURY
MAJOR  CLASSIFICATIONS  OF  TORT  LIABILITY  (Continued)

11/3/10
4
MAJOR  CLASSIFICATIONS  OF  TORT  LIABILITY  (Continued)
STRICT LIABILITY  –  LIABILITY  WITHOUT  FAULT
WILD  ANIMALS
ABNORMALLY  DANGEROUS  ACTIVITIES
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS UNREASONABLE DANGEROUS
DESIGN,  MANUFACTURING,  WARNINGS

11/3/10
5
MAJOR  CLASSIFICATIONS  OF  TORT  LIABILITY  (Continued)
HYBRID MODERN TORTS
DEFAMATION
  INVASION OF PRIVACY
NUISANCE
FRAUD & MISREPRESENTATION
INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT

1.DEFENDANT  DESIRES  NECESSARY  CONSEQUENCES,
OR
1.
2.DEFENDANT  IS  SUBSTANTIALLY  CERTAIN  THAT  HIS  ACTS  WILL  CAUSE  NECESSARY CONSEQUENCES.
1.
1.
11/3/10
6

TRANSFER  AS  BETWEEN  INTENDED  VICTIMS
E.g.,  D  intends  to  batter  A,  but  batters  B  instead.
AND
TRANSFER  AS  BETWEEN  INTENDED  TORTS
E.g.,  D  intends  to  assault  A,  but  batters  A  instead.
DOCTRINE ONLY APPLIES TO:
BATTERY
ASSAULT
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
TRESPASS TO CHATTELS
TRESPASS TO LAND
NOT CONVERSION, OUTRAGE, FRAUD OR ANY OTHER TORT
11/3/10
7

NEITHER  IS  A  DEFENSE  TO INTENTIONAL  TORTS
THE  QUESTION  IS  WHETHER  THE  D IS  CAPABLE  OF  FORMING  THE  SIMPLE INTENTS  NECESSARY  FOR
LIABILITY
11/3/10
8

DEFINITION: D ACTS WITH THE INTENT TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THE BODY OF ANOTHER AND CAUSES HARMFUL OR
OFFENSIVE CONTACT WITH ANOTHER.
QUESTION:  What if you rip plate out of hand of Vic in a rude manner?
QUESTION:  Is “harmful or offensive” a subjective or objective test?
QUESTION:  What if Vic does not learn of harmful contact until after the fact?
QUESTION:  What if Vic is a hemophiliac and your punch kills him  because he bleeds to death?

11/3/10
9

DEFINITION:  D ACTS WITH THE INTENT TO PLACE ANOTHER IN APPREHENSION OF BATTERY AND CAUSES ANOTHER
TO BE PLACED IN REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF IMMINENT BATTERY.
FOR VIC’S APPREHENSION TO BE REASONABLE, D MUST HAVE THE APPARENT PRESENT ABILITY TO MAKE CONTACT.
BUT THREAT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE REAL.
REASON WHY WORDS ALONE ARE RARELY ENOUGH.
VIC MUST BE AWARE OF THREAT WHEN IT’S MADE.
“FEAR” IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF ASSAULT.
11/3/10
10

DEFINITION:  D ACTS WITH THE INTENT TO CONFINE OR RESTRAIN ANOTHER WITHIN A DEFINED AREA FIXED BY D
AND CAUSES THE OTHER TO BE SO CONFINED.
CONFINEMENT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED”
1.PHYSICAL BARRIERS
2.FORCE OR THREAT AGAINST VIC OR FAMILY OR PROPERTY, E.G., DOG  OR  CAR
3.OMISSION TO ACT WHEN A DUTY
4.IMPROPER EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY
5.
11/3/10
11

11/3/10
12
DEFINITION: D ACTS WITH INTENT TO INTERFERE WITH PERSONAL PROPERTY AND CAUSES SIGNIFICANT
INTERFERENCE WITH PL’S RIGHT OF POSSESSION.
PROOF OF BAD FAITH IS NOT REQUIRED, E.G. D SHOOTS DOG REASONABLY THINKING IT IS WOLF.
INTENT ELEMENT IS OFTEN LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT
HARMLESS INTERMEDDLING WITH PERSONAL PROPERTY NOT SUFFICIENT
SOME DAMAGE OR SIGNIFICANT DISPOSSESSION IS REQUIRED

11/3/10
13
DEFINITION: D ACTS WITH INTENT TO EXERCISE DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER A CHATTEL, WHICH SO SERIOUSLY
INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHT OF ANOTHER TO CONTROL IT, THAT THE D MAY BE JUSTLY REQUIRED TO PAY THE
OTHER THE FULL MARKET VALUE OF THE CHATTEL AT THE TIME OF THE CONVERSION.

11/3/10
14
“SERIOUS INTERFERENCE”   Restatement of Torts, 2nd
1.Extent & Duration of D’s Dominion & Control
2.D’s Intent to Assert a Right Inconsistent w/Pl’s Right of Control
3.D’s Good or Bad Faith
4.Extent & Duration of Resulting Interference
5.Harm Done to the Chattel
6.Inconvenience & Expense Caused to Pl

11/3/10
15
DEFINITION: D INTENTIONALLY ENTERS ONTO LAND THAT (WITH OR WITHOUT D’S KNOWLEDGE) BELONGS TO
ANOTHER, WITHOUT PERMISSION,
OR
D INTENTIONALLY REMAINS ON LAND THAT (WITH OR WITHOUT D’S KNOWLEDGE) BELONGING TO ANOTHER, WITHOUT
PERMISSION, EVEN IF HE ENTERED WITH PERMISSION,
OR
D INTENTIONALLY PLACES AN OBJECT ON LAND THAT (WITH OR WITHOUT D’S KNOWLEDGE) BELONGS TO ANOTHER,
WITHOUT PERMISSION.

11/3/10
16
DEFINITION:  D ACTS IN AN EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS MANNER  WITH THE INTENT OR RECKLESSNESS  TO CAUSE
PL SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND CAUSES SUCH DISTRESS
“EXTREME & OUTRAGEOUS” – BEYOND ALL POSSIBLE BOUNDS OF DECENCY REGARDED AS ATROCIOUS & UTTERLY
INtolerable in a Civilized Community
“INTENT OR RECKLESSNESS” – DESIRE, SUBSTANTIAL CERTAINTY OR ACTING IN DELIBERATE DISREGARD OF A
KNOWN HIGH PROBABILITY THAT SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS WILL RESULT