Casebook pages Chapter 9: Battery, Assault & False Imprisonment. Battery

Transcription

1 Law 580: Torts Section 1 October 22, 2015 Casebook pages Chapter 9: Battery, Assault & False Imprisonment Battery

2 1. Negligence Walter v. WalMart Stores (p. 5) 2. Strict Liability Pingaro v. Rossi (p. 151) Basis of Liability 3. Nuisance Boomer v. Atlantic Cement (p. 859) 4. Intent

3 Battery 2. Intent to cause contact 3. Contact that is harmful or offensive

4 Assault 2. Intent to cause the apprehension of imminent contact 3. Apprehension of contact that is harmful or offensive

5 Battery 2. Intent to cause contact 3. Contact that is harmful or offensive

6 Cecarelli v. Maher (Conn. Com. Pl. 1943) p Who sued whom? 2. What happened? 3. What s the procedural history? 4. What question(s) is/are before this court? 5. What does plaintiff argue? 6. What does defendant argue? 7. What does the court decide? 8. Why? Battery 2. Intent to cause contact 3. Contact that is harmful or offensive

7 Paul v. Holbrook (Fla. App. 1997) p Who sued whom? 2. What happened? 3. What s the procedural history? 4. What question(s) is/are before this court? 5. What does plaintiff argue? 6. What does defendant argue? 7. What does the court decide? 8. Why? Battery 2. Intent to cause contact 3. Contact that is harmful or offensive

8 American Law Institute Restatement of the Law Second Torts 13 Battery: Harmful Contact An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if (a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and (b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results. 18 Battery: Offensive Contact (1) An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if (a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and (b) an offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results. (2) An act which is not done with the intention stated in Subsection (1, a) does not make the actor liable to the other for a mere offensive contact with the other's person although the act involves an unreasonable risk of inflicting it and, therefore, would be negligent or reckless if the risk threatened bodily harm.

9 American Law Institute Restatement of the Law Third Torts: Intentional Torts to Persons Tentative Draft No. 1 (April 8, 2015) 101. Battery: General Definition An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if: (a) the actor intends to cause a contact with the person of the other ; (b) the actor s affirmative conduct causes such a contact; (c) the contact (i) causes bodily harm to the other or (ii) is offensive, as provided in 103; and (d) the other does not effectively consent to the otherwise tortious conduct of the actor, as provided in 111.

10 Vosburg v. Putney (Wis. 1891) p Who sued whom? 2. What happened? 3. What s the procedural history? 4. What question(s) is/are before this court? 5. What does plaintiff argue? 6. What does defendant argue? 7. What does the court decide? 8. Why? Battery 2. Intent to cause contact 3. Contact that is harmful or offensive

11 Cole v. Hibberd (Ohio App. 1994) p Who sued whom? 2. What happened? 3. What s the procedural history? 4. What question(s) is/are before this court? 5. What does plaintiff argue? 6. What does defendant argue? 7. What does the court decide? 8. Why? Battery 2. Intent to cause contact 3. Contact that is harmful or offensive

12 An individual is liable for battery when he or she acts intending to cause offensive or harmful contact, and such contact results. Offensive contact is contact that would be offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity Cole insists that Hibberd did not act with an intention to cause harm. However, it is the intentional nature of the contact with the plaintiff that controls the definition, not the intent to cause actual harm or injury. Construing the facts most strongly in favor of Cole, this court concludes that the essential character of her complaint is grounded in the intentional tort of assault and battery. From the evidence presented, reasonable minds can only conclude that Hibberd intended to kick Cole. We also conclude that Hibberd s contact, as testified to by Cole in her deposition, would be considered offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity. It is irrelevant to this determination whether or not Hibberd intended to cause injury. Cole v. Hibberd (p. 63)

13 Wagner v. State (Utah 2005) p Who sued whom? 2. What happened? 3. What s the procedural history? 4. What question(s) is/are before this court? 5. What does plaintiff argue? 6. What does defendant argue? 7. What does the court decide? 8. Why? Immunity from suit of all governmental entities is waived for injury proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of an employee committed within the scope of employment except if the injury arises out of... : 2. assault, battery, [or] false imprisonment.... Utah Code Ann (2) (Utah 1997).