tort

can be either
a. Specific – the goal in acting is to bring about specific consequences
b. General – actor knows with substantial certainty that these consequences will result

c. Reckless generally does not suffice
except for in the case of intentional infliction of emotion distress

need only D’s conduct that is a substantial factor

1. Act by D
2. Intent
3. Causation
4. No requirement on damages, except for intentional infliction of emotional distress (severe distress)

battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattel

A tort committed against one person but instead:
a. different tort against that person
b. same tort against different person
c. different tort against different person

no

no

yes

yes

harmful or offensive contact to P’s person

no

(Unpermitted) contact – means P has not consented

(consent is implied for ordinary contacts of everyday life

) It is offense if average people don’t permit it (hypersensitive people don’t matter, must be avg person).

(i) Includes everything connected to P (e.g. clothing, carrying a briefcase, kick your dog on a leash)

no

no

battery

reasonable apprehension of an immediate battery

(i) Synonymous with knowledge or awareness

depends on P’s knowledge – put yourself in P’s shoes to decide it is an assault. If P knows he can’t be touched, it is not an assault. If P doesn’t know, it is an assault

threat must be specific & immediate

no

no

words in conditional or future tense) (I will beat you up 8 hours from now - is not an assault

an act or omission on the part of D that confines or restrains P to a bounded area

an act or omission on the part of D that confines or restrains P to a bounded area

(i) Physical barriers, physical force, threats of force, invalid use of legal authority, failure to release or omission (in case of preexisting duty to help people move around)

yes.
(ii) P’s awareness of confinement or harm arising from the confinement

b. Result is confinement in bounded area – must be locked in a bounded area

(ii) NO reasonable means of escape reasonably known by P (must be reasonable and reasonably discoverable→cannot be dangerous, hidden, disgusting

no

no, if there is reasonable (i) suspicion, (ii) means of detention, and (iii) amount of time

D engages in extreme & outrageous conduct, & P suffers severe distress as a consequence

exceeds all bounds of decency tolerated in a civilized society;

need plus factors (hallmarks of outrageousness):

intentional infliction of emotional distress

Must be Severe emotional distress

no,determined by jury

intentional physical invasion of P’s real property

(i) Entering the property
(ii) D propels physical objects onto the land

(a) No requirement that D be aware that he’s on someone else’s land, but intent of entry required

yes, if b is physical object.

no,but can be an action for nuisance.

civil remedies for damage and theft of personal property

(i) physical damage, or (ii) deprive owner of possession

actual damages (cost of repair or rental)

the interference is so serious that it warrants requiring defendant to pay the chattel’s full value

You break it, you bought it

no

no

1. Consent
2. Protective privilege
3. Necessity

yes.if lack of capacity, you CANNOT consent

drunk, insane, child

words in quotation marks giving the D permission to behave in a certain way

if given under circumstances of fraud or duress

if P participates in an activity where certain invasions are necessary, he’s deemed to consent to those invasions (whether the behavior is typical or customary, subway, sports)

no, it must be D’s reasonable interpretation of P’s objective circumstances or conduct

if D exceeds the scope of consent, he’s liable

includes (i) self-defense, (ii) defense of others, & (iii) defense of property

(i) D has to show proper timing tort (threat you are responding to) must be either in progress or imminent
(ii) D must have a reasonable belief that a tort (threat) is genuine

no

no

no

yes

no

no,yes

(i) D has to show proper timing
(ii) D must have a reasonable belief that a tort (threat) is genuine

battery

if necessary to protect human (yourself or 3rd person)

no

yes, the assult is privileged

Duty to retreat before resorting to deadly force; BUT DOES NOT apply (i) you’re in your own home,

only a defense to the property torts (trespass to land, trespass to chattel, or conversion)

a. Public necessity

(i) Absolute defense, & D is immunized from all damage liability

– D invades P’s property in an emergency to protect an interest of his own (his own safety or property

no

(a) D remains liable to harm inflicted on property & must pay for harm inflicted
(b) D is NEVER liable for nominal or punitive damages
(c) As long as the emergency continues, D entitled to remain on P’s landing a position of safety

- Can’t be expelled or ejected

- Can’t be expelled or ejected
P must pay

(i) Defamatory statement of P
(ii) Publication
(iii) Damages to P’s reputation

(a) Adverse effect on P’s reputation
which can be written or spoken.

no

defamation

deformation

statement of fact, deformation

not deformation

defamation. if a listener would assume that the speaker has a factual basis for the opinion

Opinion can be considered defamatory based on its tone, purpose, and context

(a) D discloses the defamatory statement to one or more persons other than P himself
(b) Can be made either negligently or intentionally

- Primary publishers are liable to the same extent as the author or speaker. One who repeats a defamation is liable on the same general basis as the primary publisher (even if she states the source or makes it clear that she does not believe the defamation.)

yes

maybe

– written or captured publication of defamatory language in a permanent format otherwise

- NO need to prove damages; presumption of damages

spoken or oral defamation

oral statements especially devastating to reputation:
→ P’s business or profession
→ crime of moral turpitude
→ unchaste women
→ loathsome disease

slander per se

loathsome disease

no

yes.actual economic loss) to get to jury; NOT emotional distress & social harm

no no

no yes

no yes

YES YES

consent

where P does not need to prove falsity, D may prove truth as a complete defense

P need not prove falsity, D can assert truth as a defense

(i) Defamatory statement of P
(ii) Publication
(iii) Damages to P’s reputation

yes

- Spouses – if a husband makes a statement to his wife, libeling someone else ⇒ can’t be sued. Rationale is to protect privacy between husband and wife
- Members of the three branches of the government in the conduct of their duties
- Lawyers are considered members of the judicial branch (consider prosecutors, what would happen to them if they don’t have this privilege)

based on purpose of the speech.
- socially valuable or useful;
- relevant; and
- made in good faith (reasonable mistake of fact)

applicable in matters of public concern

P can only sue for FAD, NOT for common law defamation

(i) Defamatory statement (same as for common law)
(ii) Publication (same as for common law)
(iii) Damages (same as for common law)
(iv) P must prove Falsity – the statement is factually inaccurate - the burden is shifted from D to P
(v) P must prove Fault on D’s part – relates to D’s awareness of the falsity

intentional or recklessness) – if P can show that D had actual malice (i.e., knew the falsity or had reckless disregard as to truth or falsity – made no effort to investigate truth
punitive damages allowed

negligence at least):
- Damages for only actual injury

only in a FAD cases, NOT in a common law defamation case

unauthorized use of P’s name or picture for D’s commercial advantage (right of publicity)

no,the appropriation must be connected with promoting a product or service.

no

Appropriation.

invasion of P’s secluded space(solitude) in a way that would be objectionable to the average person

no.No claim unless truly in a private space & expectation of privacy (

no

no.c. Only against private individuals

Intrusion

widespread dissemination of a major misrepresentation about the P that would be objectionable to an average (reasonable) person.

Publication of facts placing plaintiff in false light

a. Widespread dissemination
b. A major misrepresentation

no

no

False light claim. Also claim for defamation

defamation → money damages; false light → more emotional damages

no.You run your mouth at your own peril

the widespread dissemination of confidential information about the P that would be objectionable to an average person

a. This tort deals with truthful information
b. The deal is that the info is SENSITIVE/confidential and the D is disclosing it to the world: academic info, financial info, medical info

no.The media is going to be protected if they find out confidential information in the news

very broadly.

no. Dual life fact pattern, not a Public disclosure of private facts about plaintiff:

a. Consent can be express or implied

Privilege

An intentional affirmative misrepresentation (fraud, deceit

a. Misrepresentation of a material fact
b. Scienter
c. Intent to induce P to act or refrain from acting in reliance on the misrepresentation
d. Causation
e. Justifiable reliance
f. Damages