Torts
Class Notes
Last time…we talked about false imprisonment, and in particular, the
threat to confine.
The
Restatement of Torts says that to recover for false imprisonment, you must be
aware of the imprisonment, or you must be harmed by it.
You
must be actually confined; moral persuasion is insufficient for false
imprisonment.
There
aren’t that many false imprisonment claims made in the world. False arrest and shoplifting claims are the
most frequent cases. Usually, when
someone says “let me out”, they are let out.
For
confinement to be unlawful, it must be unconsented and unprivileged.
What
kinds of injuries must you suffer to be able to recover for false
imprisonment? You need to have physical,
mental, or economic damages. You could
even make a claim for nominal damages, but you probably wouldn’t want to
bother.
We generally don’t want to encourage the practice of
citizens’ arrests.
In the end, why do we have false imprisonment
claims? We want to ensure personal
freedom and dignity, and we want to deter abuse by authority figures. We put limitations on the tort because we want
to protect property rights and allow public officers to make appropriate
decisions.
The
plaintiff was in a cult and was kept on a yacht with her children. She wanted to get off the yacht, but the cult
was trying to get her to stay in the cult.
She wasn’t allowed to leave the yacht on her own. The court ruled that this was false
imprisonment.
Does
it change the case if the yacht is nice?
No.
What
is another way to prove the intent to confine?
She had the impression that she would be allowed off of the boat when
they got to
Compare
this to the case where a jailer fails to let a prisoner out when his term of
punishment is up.
What
about the case of deprogramming? Is this
false imprisonment? Would it make a
difference if the deprogrammers were medical professionals? Could the family members sue the cult for
false imprisonment on behalf of the cult member? The problem is establishing whether the cult
member is there voluntarily. Generally
speaking, individuals are responsible for their own torts; people are free to
associate with whoever they want.
Parents
aren’t liable for their children’s torts, except by statute, for example if
children are negligent in their supervision of their kids.
Mistake
– Ranson v. Kitner
A
hunter shoots a dog and kills it. The
judgment in the trial court was for the plaintiff. The defense is that they did not intent to
harm a dog, they intended to harm a wolf.
The court says the defendants are liable because even though it was in
good faith, you’re still liable.
Why
would we have a rule like this? We might
fear fraudulent claims of mistake. We
also want to see the harmed person recover.
If you have intent to harm, but harm someone or something else, you’re
still liable.
We
want defendants to bear the risks of their own mistakes.
Mistake
does not negate intent.
Does
insanity negate intent?
An
insane person hurt a nurse. Are insane
people liable for their torts? Yes,
because you do the tort, you do the time.
We favor the injured person over the injurer.
What
other justifications exist for holding an insane person liable? If you’re capable of forming the intent to
cause harm, even if the intent is totally divorced from the reality of the
situation, you’ll be liable.
But
why hold someone who has been committed to a mental institution liable? The intentional tort issue exists apart from
negligence. Are relatives going to try
to restraint the insane person? The
court suggests we want the relatives to be responsible for keeping the person
from hurting others.
This
is a practical, utilitarian compensation rule.
We don’t want to get into fault here, and we don’t want courts to get
too deep into the question of insanity.
Other
countries don’t hold insane people responsible for their torts.
As
long as you have the intent to do harm, even if you think you’re Napoleon
harming an enemy, you’ll be liable. The
law doesn’t care what delusion the insane person is under when he commits the
battery. Is this a good or fair
rule? Well, it is the rule.
Talmage v. Smith – transferred intent
Smith
owned several sheds and he found some boys sitting on his sheds. He told the boys to get off of one shed, and
they did. He told some boys to get off a
second shed, and threw a stick and hit one of them. The defendant says that he should only be
found liable for assault because he didn’t intend to hurt anyone, just to scare
them. The court finds that the intent of
assault transfers to the battery that actually occurs.
Transferred
intent can only be transferred among a certain group of torts: assault,
battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land and trespass to chattels. Neither conversion nor intentional infliction
of emotional distress is covered.
Why
do we have the doctrine of transferred intent?
Does
this turn on the intent to act or the intent to harm?
The
defendant must have had intent to cause harmful or offensive contact or
apprehension thereof. Otherwise, the
defendant is not going to be found liable for any intentional tort.
We
don’t hold people liable for intentional torts when they don’t have intent.
Intentional Infliction of
Mental Distress
1. It must be
intentional or reckless.
2. There must be severe
emotional distress.
3. It must be extreme
and outrageous.
4. The plaintiff
must suffer actual damages.
5. Transferred
intent does not apply.
6. Third parties
may or may not apply.
State
Rubbish Collectors Ass’n v. Siliznoff
The
SRCA sued Siliznoff to collect notes, and Siliznoff countersued and won. Siliznoff claims that he experienced severe
mental suffering.
How
does the court justify moving toward this new intentional infliction tort?