Torts
Class Notes
About
the practice exam
It’s
next Wednesday, it will be 30 minutes (so you can gauge your time).
It’s
open book and open note (that’s your case book and your class notes).
On
the final exam, you probably have print stuff off your computer. The computer rules are extensive. Don’t search!
Don’t cut and paste from your outline!
You
can handwrite or type. Typing people can
go print it out and give it to Prof. Cole by (hopefully)
It’s
just one question, and it will be about intentional torts and defenses to them.
Don’t
use old exams yet, they cover stuff we haven’t covered.
Review
Last time, we talked about trespass to chattels and
started talking about conversion.
You can’t transfer intent
with conversion.
Conversion
is an inefficient way to get your goods back because you force the sale of the
goods. Generally, the further away goods
move, the more likely a jury will call it conversion. The question is: at what point is it so
inconvenient that the plaintiff can sue for conversion?
Mistake does not negate
intent.
An
alternative action to conversion is to replevin the goods, which means to get
the stuff back rather than forcing it resold.
If somebody took a lottery ticket or a special pet, the situation would
suggest using an action for replevin instead of an action for conversion.
Don’t ever make up facts on
a test question.
We’ve
now covered all the prima facie cases you can establish for intentional
torts. Now we’ll cover defenses that can
be asserted.
Consent
This
is based on the plaintiff’s conduct. The
defendant will argue that a reasonable person would have taken the plaintiff’s
actions as consent to the defendant’s act.
How
would a reasonable person view what the plaintiff did? She mentioned in passing that she had already
been vaccinated, and did not protest when he said that he didn’t see a mark.
Are
there any arguments for the plaintiff that would avoid the outcome in this
case? She could argue that it was a
coercive and oppressive environment where she didn’t have much power. Therefore, it wasn’t appropriate to infer
consent.
Most
people read the case in such a way that the consent is reasonable, but it’s
useful to explore the opposing view.
Custom
and circumstances weigh heavily in determining whether someone has consented to
a particular action.
What’s
the problem with suggesting that the plaintiff should prevail? You would have a policy problem and a
conflict with the legitimate interest in preventing disease. Also, if you can’t rely on the objective
appearance of consent, it would be slow and expensive because you would need
forms and procedures and so on. In this
case, we treat the objective appearance of consent as actual consent.
If
the circumstances indicate implied consent, the plaintiff needs to explicitly
withdraw consent. Otherwise, the plaintiff
is responsible for her own protection, for example, through insurance.
You
can infer consent from the existence of a relationship through action or
words. Therefore, in order to withdraw
consent, the plaintiff must use action or words to make it clear.
Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.
There
was a game between the Bengals and the Broncos.
What’s
the consent issue here? Do the players
implicitly consent to violence simply by playing the game of football?
Does
it matter if the injury happened during a play?
Can we tell from the facts?
If
the injury happened outside the course of playing the game itself, it’s not governed
by the rules of the game and you can be held liable for battery.
It’s
presumed that players consent to conduct that’s within the rules, but not
conduct that’s outside the rules of play.
How
do you figure it out? Well, what’s the
custom of a football game? Does the
given conduct fit into the custom of the game?
Well, no, hitting isn’t allowed by rule or by custom in the game.
If
it happens in the course of the game, it’s unlikely you’ll be able to recover
for battery. If a fight breaks out that
you didn’t get involved in but you get whacked anyway, you probably have a good
case.
You
can imply consent from a course of dealing that the parties have had in the
past. Conduct that is normally accepted
in society will not be called battery.
The
plaintiff was a patient who was told that her right ear needed an
operation. During the operation, the
surgeon decided the right ear was fine, but the left ear needed surgery, which
he performed. At trial, the jury found
for the plaintiff with a big verdict, but the trial judge granted a new trial
on the basis of excessive damages.
This
is technical battery based on the interest in protecting people from
interference with their person.
We
allow parents to waive children’s rights during medical procedures.
Furthermore,
in terms of determining the costs and benefits of determining a particular
procedure, the best person to make the judgment is the plaintiff, so we need to
wake the plaintiff up and do the procedure another day.
Why
does the plaintiff sue for battery rather than negligence? The doctor did the procedure right, so you
can’t sue for negligence on that basis.
In 1905, there was no informed consent, so the plaintiff in this case
had to sue under battery.
Consent
may be implied if a procedure is necessary to preserve life or limb and the
person is unable to give express intent.
Next
time, we’ll continue with consent.