Just because you have committed an intentional tort doesn’t mean that you are going to be found liable. There are several affirmative defenses to an intentional tort, and we will look at consent and self-defense / defense of property.
O’Brien v. Cunard SS Co.
Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.
Mohr v. Williams
Katko v. Briney
Trespass to land is entering onto someone’s property without permission. Trespass to chattels is temporary or partial interference with someone’s ownership of movable property. Conversion is the complete interference or destruction of movable property. We will look at these torts with specific cases.
Dougherty v. Stepp
CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc.
Parish v. Machlan
Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a relatively new tort. Springing about from assault, it allows recovery for activity that is intentional and beyond all bounds of decency.
State Rubbish Collectors Association v. Siiznoff
Green v. Chicago Tribune
False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of an individual against their will. We will discuss this relatively straightforward tort in this episode.
Big Town Nursing Home, Inc. v. Newman
Hardy v. Labelle’s Distributing Co.
Whittaker v. Sandford
Assault is distinct from battery, as the former does not require physical contact. We’ll look at some cases to familiarize ourselves with the elements of a civil assault.
I de S et ux v. W de S
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill
Battery is perhaps the simplest intentional tort, but still has its share of complexity. We will discuss the elements of battery, the distinction between single intent and dual intent requirements, and how mentally ill defendants are treated in regards to battery.
Wallace v. Rosen
Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications
Manning v. Grimsley
McGuire v. Almy
White v. Muniz
We now move from negligence to the study of intentional torts. These intentional torts make up approximately 5% of tort actions today, and comprise assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels. We will also discuss the concept of transferred intent.
Ranson v. Kitner
A statute of limitations (and its cousin the statute of repose) serve to put a time limit on when a tort action can be brought. Once the statute of limitations has passed, the merits of an individual lawsuit become irrelevant.
Teeters v. Currey
Certain types of actors are granted legal immunity from torts. For example, children generally cannot sue their parents, and sovereign immunity is often used by the state. We will examine these privileges and immunities, and see how they have evolved over the years.
Just because a defendant has fulfilled the black-letter law elements of the tort doesn’t mean that they will have to pay out. Assumption of the risk and the open and obvious doctrine can provide relief to such a defendant.
Seigneur v. National Fitness Institute, Inc.
Thompson v. McNeill
Rees v. Cleveland Indians
Armstrong v. Best Buy