Intentional Interference with Person or Property

I. Intent
a. 2 elements
i. Willed act and
ii. Scienter (mindset)
iii. Willed act
1. No if actor suffers seizure and flails arms, hitting P
2. Yes, if hold gun to actor’s head and tells to hit P,
“or else”
iv. Scienter (mindset)
1. 2 types
a. Volitional (Specific) – consequence that
results is the goal
i. Harm can be separate from scienter
b. Requisite certiorari (General) – knows with
substantial certainty the consequence will
result
b. Transferred intent (only for assault, battery, false imprisonment,
trespass to land, and trespass to chattel)
i. Commits same tort intended, but against a different
person
1. Borrow intent formed by person the tort was
intended for
ii. Intend one tort, but another occurs
1. Pretend to hit A, trip and actually hit A
iii. Commits a different tort against a different person
1. Pretend to hit A, trip and accidentally hit B
c. A mistake of fact does not nullify liability because the action
was still intended
d. It is a subjective standard
i. Age and intelligence matter
ii. Motive is irrelevant
iii. Mistake of fact does not mean no intent
II. Battery
a. Rule statement: Battery is the intent to bring about harmful or
offensive contact to a person, or object intimately connected,
and such contact occurs either directly or indirectly.
b. Elements (3)
i. Intent;

1
 ii. harmful or offensive contact; and
iii. contact occurs directly or indirectly.
c. Intent
i. Dual intent jurisdiction
1. Must prove intent was to cause the harm
d. Harmful or offensive contact
i. Contact must be made or else there is no cause of action
ii. Crowded world—under certain circumstances, action
may not be battery if it is customary contact
iii. Idiosyncratic contact—actor is aware the contact will
be harmful, but does it anyway (i.e. touch someone on
the shoulder to get their attention knowing they just had
shoulder surgery)
e. Contact occurs either directly or indirectly
i. Without contact there is no cause of action for battery.
f. Apprehension is not an element of battery. Battery can occur
without an assault occurring.
g. Action can be battery even if know after the incident occurs.
h. Liable for unintended injury
i. Intend to pretend to hit A, trip and actually hit A
III. Assault
a. Rule statement: Assault is the intent to create reasonable
apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact with
the apparent present ability.
b. Elements (3)
i. intent
ii. reasonable apprehension
iii. imminent harmful or offensive contact (with the present
ability to do so).
c. intent
i. mere actions typically are not enough
d. reasonable apprehension
i. does not have to create fear, but only uncertainty
ii. must see it coming or there is no anticipation
e. imminent harmful or offensive contact
i. cannot be threat of future action
f. Words matter. However, words typically need to be
accompanied by an action to be considered assault
i. If a person reaches for their pocket and says words that
insinuates harm (“I’ll blow your brains out,”) it can be

2
 reasonably inferred the person is reaching for a gun.
However, if the person says, “Excuse me, I need a
handkerchief,” it can be reasonable concluded the
person has no intent for the reach to cause (further)
harm.
ii. Words can be enough if threat of assault is against a
blind person.
g. Unprivileged demand
i. Actor threatens an action by requiring something that is
not his in return
1. “I’ll punch you if you don’t give me your jewelry”
– assault
2. “I’d punch you if you weren’t wearing glasses.” –
not assault
IV. False Imprisonment
a. Rule statement: A person is guilty of false imprisonment if they
intend to, and do in fact, confine P within boundaries set by the
actor and P is conscious of the confinement or harmed by it.
b. Elements (3)
i. Intent;
ii. to confine another; and
iii. in a bounded area.
c. intent
i. can happen accidentally, but intent begins when actor
realizes there is confinement by her hands
ii. can be when there is a substantial certainty confinement
will occur
d. to confine another
i. physical barriers, physical force, direct threats of force,
indirect threats of force, failure to provide a means of
escape
ii. Reasonable means of escape can change depending on
the circumstances
1. A fire in the area of your confinement can
suddenly make a 7th floor window more reasonable
2. Actor is still liable if harm yourself from escaping
using the reasonable means of escape
3. Nakedness is not a reasonable means of escape
iii. Duress

3
 1. Actor threatens someone else or keeps important
property
2. Depends on the totality of the circumstances
3. Keeping property
a. What is the actor threatening to do? Detain,
harm, leave with?
b. What is the property?
i. Fungible – replaceable
ii. Court may not care if property has
value to you
c. Does not typically rise to level of duress
i. Could have called police, sued, or left
item – not enough for false
imprisonment
e. in a bounded area
i. type of space does not matter (big, little, luxurious,
dump)
f. P is aware of confinement
i. Consciousness must be at the time of confinement OR
there is harm from the confinement
ii. Liberty interest – must realize you have been deprived
of your liberty
g. Mere exclusion or words are not enough.
h. Must be objective facts, not subjective to considered FI
i. By position of legal authority
i. P has good faith belief D has authority
ii. Courts want people to obey assertions of legal authority
so courts don’t want you to try to escape
iii. Teacher, police, fire fighter, etc.
j. By appeals to conscience
i. Threat of losing job is not enough.
ii. “if good Christian, you won’t leave.” – not enough
k. Duty of care or means of egress
i. En loco parentis – certain relationships will impose a
duty
1. Teacher/student, parent/child
ii. Privilege that expires
1. Plane – pilot has privilege to confine until
destination, at which point this expires and he must
provide a reasonable means of escape

4
 2. Sheriff
iii. Undertook confinement (under contract)
1. Offer someone a ride home
iv. Responsible for initial confinement
1. Happens once one realizes the act caused
confinement
2. Factual and legal liability
a. factually responsible can become legal
responsibility when become aware
V. Intentional Infliction of Severe Emotional Distress (IISED)
a. Rule statement: The intent to inflict serious emotional distress
by acting in an extreme or outrageous manner where severe
emotional distress actually occurs
b. Elements
i. Intent;
ii. Extreme and outrageous conduct; and
iii. Severe emotional distress ensues.
c. Intent
d. Extreme and outrageous conduct
i. Beyond the boundaries we accept as being part of the
community
ii. Must be determined in the environment it occurred.
iii. Vulnerability of P (child, mentally impaired, D knew
vulnerability of P)
iv. Duration of intensity (act wasn’t extreme and
outrageous, but was consistent)
e. Severe emotional distress
i. Severely disabling emotional response
f. Employer to employee – may be held to higher standard
g. Can recover for any physical symptoms that manifest
i. Can be symptom from a pre-existing condition
h. Bystander
i. If D did not know there was a bystander there was no
intent
ii. Can be from hearing if P knows what’s going on
1. D calls P to hear him batter P’s father
2. P in another room, D knows this
i. Restatement suggests a percipient witness must prove (5):
i. Intent
ii. Conduct was extreme and outrageous

5
 iii. Suffer severe emotional distress
iv. Must be present and defendant aware
v. If not immediate family, must prove distress manifested
in visible symptoms
VI. Trespass to Land
a. Rule statement: The intent to physically invade the superior
possessory interest of another, and actual invasion occurs.
b. Elements
i. Intent
ii. Physical invasion
iii. Superior right of possession
c. Intent
i. Mistake of facts does not matter (good faith belief it
was your land)
ii. To invade another’s possessory interest
d. Physical invasion
i. Directly or indirectly
1. Throw or chase someone on the land (thrower or
chaser liable)
e. Superior right of possession – protects these rights
i. Tenant or landowner can sue, but not both
ii. Renter of a week does not have superior possession
iii. Can give invitation and then rescind, expiring privilege
to be on land – T/L if stay or leave something (posts
from sample case with lawn mower)
f. Protects possession of land
i. Air above and land below is your property (except
navigable air space)
ii. Not to be confused with nuisance claim (bullet shot
over land)
iii. Nuisance claims must balance P and D
1. Who was there first?
2. Who benefits outside the 2 parties by the conduct?
g. Do not need harm – nominal damages are $1
h. Pollution
i. Can pursue if actual and substantial damages are
proven.
i. There is implied consent unless a ‘no trespass’ sign is posted
i. Can expire by time, space, or purpose

6
 ii.
Customs/Crowded World Doctrine - Girl scout comes
to sell cookies. Consent can be revoked if told to get
off property. Consent also not given if Girl scout is
‘casing the joint’ for a robbery (intent to harm)
VII. Trespass to Chattels
a. Rule statement: The intent to intermeddle with another’s
chattel, where such intermeddling and harm occurs
b. Elements
i. Intent to intermeddle;
ii. Intermeddling with possession;
iii. Superior possessory interest; and
iv. Harm to possessor or someone under his care or
control.
c. Intent
i. Does not matter if it’s good faith or mistaken intent
d. Intermeddling
i. Intermeddling does not have to be with P’s owned item,
can be with something simply in their possession
e. Damages
i. Can be to possession or possessor
1. Took book before exam
2. Took bag with someone’s medicine – had a
medical emergency while bag was not with them
ii. Must have actual damages or there is no cause of action
l----------------------------------------------l-----------------------------------------------l
No cause of action Trespass to chattel (T/C) Conversion

VIII. Conversion
a. Rule statement: The intent to intermeddle with chattel of
another, where intermeddling actually occurs and is so severe as
to cause an injustice to require full payment of the chattel.
b. Elements
i. Intent;
ii. Intermeddling directly or indirectly;
iii. Possessory interest; and
iv. Intermeddling is so severe that injustice occurs and full
payment of the chattel is required.

7
 c. Intent
d. Intermeddling
i. Intermeddling is so serious in nature that an injustice
has occurred
e. Damages
i. Damages are so serious in nature it warrants D paying
the full value of the chattel.
f. Can receive nominal damages and damages through forced sale
g. Cannot receive monetary amount from force sale AND property
back
h. Factors to argue
i. Amount of time
ii. Good faith of D
iii. Harm chattel sustained
i. Examples
i. D intermeddles with chattel with the intent to steal (and
possibly re-sell) – conversion occurs at the onset of
intent even if D’s mind changes and brings the chattel
back
1. True owner can recover chattel from a bona fide
purchaser IF the converter bought the book, even if
it was through fraud (converter knew check would
bounce)
ii. When chattel is completely destroyed get the lesser of
the T/C or chattel (car totaled)
j. Chattel must have market value, even if it is informational,
scientific, or literary work.
IX. T/C and Conversion
a. Difference is the level of intermeddling
b. Cannot get title from a thief, but can get title from a fraud
c. Conversion – such a serious nature of injustice incurs that the full
value of the property and not damages must be given to P
d. Factors to determine
i. Duration without chattel
ii. Inconvenience and expense – the more expensive the
chattel the more likely it will be deemed conversion
iii. Intent – if there is bad intent can be considered chattel or
could be good faith
iv. Misdelivery – if given to the wrong person then more
likely the chattel is converted and not T/C

8
 v. Exceed the authorized use of chattel
e. Examples
i. Takes umbrella by accident, realizes not hers, immediately
brings back – No cause of action
ii. Take umbrella, realizes not hers, spokes break either by
accident, because of her, or because of another – T/C by
intermeddling
iii. Takes umbrella, realizes not hers, lose umbrella –
conversion because can’t return
iv. Takes umbrella, don’t notice umbrella isn’t hers, brings
back once realizes weeks later – T/C
1. No need for him to use the umbrella – defense to T/C
2. It rains or he needs to practice Singing in the Rain –
conversion Commented [LH1]: Is this correct? T/C then conversion
or are both T/C?
v. Takes umbrella, went out to buy a new umbrella –
Conversion
vi. Takes umbrella, bought very expensive umbrella in its
place – Conversion, but only for cost of old umbrella
X. Privileges / Defenses to Intentional Torts
a. Consent
i. Must be at the time of the act and can come about
during a consented activity (sports – agree to a certain
degree of contact)
ii. Consent can change because customs change
1. London Bridge example
2. Overseas person asked to play football example
iii. Can come about by:
1. P’s own conduct
2. Participates in consenting activity
3. Fails to speak up
4. Medical emergency situation
iv. Actual consent
1. Invalid if exceeds boundaries of consent, given by
mistake, induced by fraud, obtained by duress,
obtained during incapacitation, consent was to an
illegal act (jurisdictional)
2. Can give consent to be punched, but if punched
with brass knuckles this exceeds the boundaries of
consent

9
 3. Obtained by duress Ex.: gun pointed at you when
being asked to give D your scarf
4. Incapacitation – drunk consent
5. Illegal activity
a. Some jurisdictions say the consent is not
applicable if the consent is to an illegal act.
(Can used as a defense if caught – no
consent given)
b. Other jurisdictions say is disqualifies
criminal action
c. Caveat – status passed to protect one of the
parties from their own foolhardiness
(statutory rape)
6. Mistake of fact
a. When consent is given pursuant to a
misunderstanding or misapprehension of a
material fact (want a woman doctor is valid
while wanting a doctor from Harvard is not
valid)
v. Implied consent - Medical Emergency Doctrine (see
Mohr v Williams)
1. 2 elements to consider with consent
a. Reasonable person would conclude that P
was impliantly consenting AND
b. D must reasonably believe P is impliantly
consenting (if P gets yes and no mixed up, D
cannot reasonably believe P is consenting if
shakes head yes)
2. Can come about when
a. P’s own conduct
b. Participates – consenting activity
c. Fails to speak up
d. Medical emergency situation
3. Elements of medical emergency doctrine
a. Patient is unable to give consent;
b. Time is of the essence;
c. Life threatening risk;
d. Reasonable person would consent to
treatment; and

10
 e. No reason to believe there would not be
consent
4. Patient is unable to give consent
a. Under anesthesia, underage, mentally ill,
minor, unconscious, under the influence, etc.
5. Time is of the essence
a. If there is a possibility of waiting for consent
to be obtained this element is not met.
6. Life threatening risk
a. Loss of organ, limb, or need to stop bleeding
7. Reasonable person would consent
a. Does not include experimental treatment
b. Usually applies to standard treatments
8. No reason to believe there would not be consent
a. If a doctor or nurse knows by a card in a
wallet, or previously voiced concern that
they would not consent to X under any
circumstances this element cannot be met.
9. Cannot go looking for problems, but if find
problem in the middle of a procedure can continue
10. Doctor can refuse to treat a patient during an
emergency situation. (Jehovah’s witnesses say
they refuse any blood transfusion.)
11. Courts can intervene if a child is in danger of
losing life or limb and parents won’t give consent.
vi. Not saying yes does not always mean there is implied
consent – based on custom
1. Court will sometimes put the burden on P to speak
up in these situations
2. Husband customarily kisses wife, must object
3. Gets vaccination from dr. every year, must object
vii. Not saying no does not mean there is implied consent
1. Onus must be on D – can’t expect P to say no
2. Ex: “I’m going to come kiss you” – can’t put the
onus on P to deny consent
viii. When consent is given pursuant to a misunderstanding or
misapprehension of a material fact
1. Only want doctor from Yale, get doctor from Harvard –
collateral not material fact
b. Self-Defense

11
 i. Definition: defending yourself against an immediate
event with reasonable force
ii. Words are never enough for self-defense as a privilege
iii. Courts give wide birth.
iv. Deadly force is never appropriate unless deadly force is
used against you
1. Some jurisdictions require retreat if possible
2. Castle Doctrine: once in your home, you do not
have to retreat
v. Three levels
1. Can threaten deadly force – probably okay, based
on trier of facts
2. Is showing a gun allowed? – maybe, based on trier
of facts
3. What about shooting gun in air? – least likely to be
self-defense, depends on trier of facts
vi. Reasonable mistake as to the need for self-defense or need of
the amount of force can be forgiven by the court.
vii. Privilege of self-defense can be transferred
c. Defense of third parties
i. Courts are trying to avoid vigilantes
ii. Reasonable mistake – think someone is attacking
another, can step in and protect IF person protecting has
the privilege of self-defense (transfer intent of self-
defense)
iii. Rules have changed – would have own privilege from
the start
d. Defense of property
i. Permitted to use reasonable force to protect property or
chattel from trespasser.
ii. Once in your home, you can use deadly force if it’s
dark and someone breaks in (circumstantial)
e. Recovery of Property
i. Losing control of property is different from trespassing
1. Must use help of the court, can no longer use force
ii. Possession has been merely interrupted can use
reasonable force.
iii. Demanding property back from thief
1. Some jurisdictions you must first demand property
back before you can use force, unless futile

12
 2. If robber has gun in pocket, don’t have to demand
because gun makes it deadly force.
iv. Shopkeeper’s Privilege
1. Elements
a. Reasonable suspicion
b. Detention for a reasonable amount of time
c. Reasonable investigation
2. May not use deadly force
3. Privilege can change, so amount of force allowed
can change
4. Questions to be asked and answered by jurisdiction
a. Where privilege exercised?
i. Must be in the immediate vicinity of
the store
b. Can I use any force?
i. Most jurisdictions will allow
reasonable force
f. Justification
i. In view of the interest I was protecting or the interest I
was furthering, the harm I inflicted was reasonable
ii. Requires a balance between the interest you are
protecting v. the harm

13
I. Negligence
a. Elements of negligence
i. Duty to use reasonable care
ii. Breach of the duty
b. Elements for a cause of action
i. Duty to use reasonable care
ii. Breach of the duty
iii. Causation
iv. Actual loss or damage
c. Duty to use reasonable care
i. Requires the actor to conform to a certain standard for
the protection of others against unreasonable risks
ii. The court decides whether there is a duty
d. Breach of the duty
i. Failure to conform to the required standard
ii. The jury decides whether there was a breach
e. Causation
i. Reasonably close connection between the conduct and
the resulting injury
ii. 2 elements
1. Causation in fact
2. Legal or ‘proximate’ causation
f. Actual loss or damage
i. Nominal damages cannot be recovered if there was no
actual damage
ii. Must show proof of causation and actual damages
where P’s right was negligently invaded
iii. May recover for nuisance if there were no damages
g. Did not intend the consequences of the action
h. A mistake of fact does not nullify liability
i. Mental capacity
i. Keep an eye on those in your duty of care because you
are liable for their actions
j. Contributory negligence
i. D claims P’s conduct was negligent and P’s negligence
contributed to the cause of P’s injuries
k. Negligence is compared to the average circumstances.
i. The less likely something is to happen, the less likely it
will be found to be negligent if it does happen.

14
 ii. The more likely, the higher the standard to prevent the
harm.
l. Do not have to eradicate every possible way harm can come
about. Sometimes doing something to avoid harm can actually
cause additional harm.
i. Must reduce to a reasonable risk.
m. Can still be found liable when following code or custom.
n. Ordinary Reasonable Person (“ORP”) under the circumstances
i. Must look at the probability a negligent action will
occur times the gravity of the resulting injury compared
to the burden of the precautions.
ii. Must be knowledgeable of harms of your career, or
driving if you choose to drive.
iii. If you take reasonable steps to avoid harm, but harm
still occurs, the court is less likely to find you liable
(driving in a different country)
o. Custom
i. Not determinative, but it is probative
ii. Elements
1. It’s a custom
2. The custom is reasonable
3. The custom is reasonable under the circumstances
p. Emergency situation
i. Does not change the standard, because the emergency is
the circumstances and we always look at what a
reasonable person would do under the circumstances
ii. If P caused the emergency situation, typically cannot
use it as a defense.

15