Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Torts1
PSL Torts 1 - Battery
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Definition of Intentional Tort? | |
| Tort - Intent | The action is a willful manifestation of the Actor's desire |
| Elements - Battery | Acts intending to cause Harmful or offensive contact With another or a third person Or imminent apprehension of such contact And the offensive contact with the person of another directly or indirectly results |
| Battery - Intentional | the act must be done for the purpose of causing the contact or apprehension or with the knowledge on the part of the actor that such contact or apprehension is substantially certain to occur. |
| Battery - Contact - Offensive | Contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity and consideration will be given by the court to how direct and invasive the contact between parties must be before rising to the level of “harmful or offensive.” |
| Battery - Contact - Cont. | Not necessary that contact be directly caused by a person; it’s enough if the person intended to cause another person to come into contact with a foreign substance that they would reasonably regard as offensive. Restatement 2d § 18. |
| Battery - Contact | It is not necessary that the other party should know of the offensive contact when inflicted upon him at the time it is inflicted. |
| Talmage v. Smith Battery | the defendant committed battery when he threw a stick and the stick hit the plaintiff. |
| Brown v. Railway Co. Battery | The eggshell skull principal stands for the proposition that when a defendant commits an unwanted contact upon a plaintiff, he takes the plaintiff as she is and assumes the risk for whatever injuries result. |
| Garratt v. Dailey Battery | The mere absence of any intent to injure or embarrass the plaintiff, or to commit and assault and battery on her, would not absolve the defendant of liability if in fact he had such knowledge. |
| Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications Inc Battery - | The Court found that deliberately blowing cigarette smoke constituted an indirect contact for the purposes of a battery claim. |
| White v. University of Idaho Battery | If offensive touching occurs the actor is liable for damages despite whether the victim’s injury was not foreseeable. |
| Vosburg v. Putney Battery | in the context of determining liability, the nature of plaintiff’s injuries are relevant only to the extent that the contact qualifies as harmful and failure to foresee the consequences of his actions does not affect his liability for the injuries. |
| Vosburg v. Putney Battery | if the intended act is unlawful, the intention to commit it is also unlawful. |
| Morgan v. Loyacomo Battery | it is not necessary to touch the plaintiff's body or even clothing; knocking or snatching anything from the plaintiff's hand or touching anything connected with the person, when done in a rude or insolent manner will suffice. |
| Wallace v. Rosen Battery | There is implied consent that there will be some contact with others. The relationship of the parties, time, place and circumstances are all factors in determining the extent of the permissible contact |
| Knight v. Jewett Battery | A battery does not occur during contact while performing sports absent wanton disregard for safety |
| Mohr v. Williams Battery | A battery occurs when a doctor performs a non-emergency surgery on a patient without their express consent for the procedure. |
| Laidlaw v. Sage Battery | An act or omission done or neglected under the influence of pressing danger is considered involuntary and therefore does not support liability as an intentional tort. |
Created by:
Hammer6776
Popular Law sets