A. INTENTIONAL INTEREFERENCE WITH PERSONS OR PROPERTY A1.

Intent Intentional torts share the requirement that the defendant intentionally commit the elements that define the tort. Most contemporary courts adhere to the Restatement definition, which defines intent to mean either that the defendant desires, or is substantially certain the elements of the tort will occur. [Garratt v. Daily] The act must be intentional, or substantially certain to occur. But, the consequences need not be Rule 1: Battery requires the intentional infliction of harmful bodily contact. Rule 2: [Restatement, Torts, 13] Character of Actors Intention: if the actor causes the harmful contact knowing that such contact or apprehension is substantially certain to be produced, then the actor intended harmful contact. Note: knowledge and appreciation of a risk, short of substantial certainty is not the equivalent of intent [Spivey v. Battaglia] Transferred Intent Under the transferred intent doctrine, accepted by many courts, intent can be transferred between five torts (battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to chattel, and trespass to land) and different victims within these five torts. For example, if A intends to assault B, but accidentally commits battery against B or another party C, A is liable for the battery. [See Talmage v. Smith] The Mistake Doctrine Under the mistake doctrine, if a defendant intends to do acts which would constitute a tort, it is no defense that the defendant mistakes, even reasonably, the identity of the property or person he acts upon or believes incorrectly there is a privilege. If, for example, A shoots Bs dog, reasonably believing it is a wolf, A is liable to B, assuming B has not wrongfully induced the mistake. [See Ranson v. Kitner] Courts have applied the mistake doctrine to a variety of intentional torts. Nevertheless, in many instances actors benefit from specific privileges, such as self-defense, which protects the defendant from liability for reasonable mistakes, notwithstanding the mistake doctrine. Insanity and Infancy Unlike in criminal law, neither insanity nor infancy is a defense for an intentional tort. [See McGuire v. Almy]

However, intent is subjective and requires that the defendant actually desires or be substantially certain the elements of the tort will occur. Consequently, if the defendant is extremely mentally impaired or very young, she may not actually possess the requisite intent. A2. Battery Battery is the intentional infliction of a harmful or offensive contact with the victims person. [See Restatement 13, 16, 18.] Accidental contact, by contrast, must be analyzed under negligence or strict liability.

2nd Restatement of Torts Section 13: Battery Harmful Contact Subject to liability to another for battery if: A. Acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person OR an imminent apprehension of such contact AND B: A harmful contact directly or indirectly results Section 18: Battery Offensive Contact 1. Subject to liability to another for battery if: A. Acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person OR an imminent apprehension of such contact AND B. An offensive contact directly or indirectly results 2. An act which is not done with the intention above (1, a) does not make the actor liable to the other for a mere offensive contact with the others person although the act involves an unreasonable risk of inflicting it and, therefore, would be negligent or reckless if the risk threatened bodily harm Intent Requirement While battery requires intent, it does not require an intent to harm. It is only necessary that the defendant intend to cause either harmful or offensive contact. D has the necessary intent for battery where:
1. D intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact, or 2. D Intended to cause an imminent apprehension on Ps part of a harmful or offensive

bodily contact. Ex. D shoots at P, intending to miss, but also intending to make P think that P would be hit. This is sufficient for battery. The transferred intent doctrine is applicable to battery.

Wallace v Rosen-

Battery is the knowing or intentional touching of a person against his or her will in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. But, in crowded world, reasonable amount of touching is expected and there is assumed consent to such normal everyday touching. Harmful or Offensive Contact Battery encompasses either harmful or offensive contact. Even trivial offensive contact can constitute a battery. Not necessary to make physical contact. Mere apprehension / indirect contact would apply as well. [Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc ] ---to constitute an assault and battery, it is not necessary to touch Ps body or even his clothing; knocking or snatching anything from Ps hand or touching anything connected with his person, when done in an offensive manner, is sufficient ---anything directly grasped by the hand which are so intimately connected with ones body as to be universally regarded as part of the person. -Contact does not need to be person-to-person contact -Battery protects our dignity in addition to protecting us from physical harm Contact beyond level consented to Battery can occur where P consents to a certain level of bodily contact, but D goes beyond the consented to level. At that point a battery results. Ex. Sports, or medical procedures A3. Assault Assault is the intentional causing of an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact. Intent Requirement Assault is an intentional tort. The defendant must desire or be substantially certain that her action will cause the apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. D has requisite intent for assault if D either intends to commit an assault or intends to commit a battery Intent to create apprehension or intent to make contact (actual contact would be a battery) The transferred intent doctrine is applicable to assault. Actual contact or Apprehension Assault requires an effect. P must either actually undergo a harmful or offensive contact, or be put in immediate apprehension of such a contact.

The victim must perceive that harmful or offensive contact is about to happen to him. [Western Union Telegraph v. Hill1] Imminent Harmful or Offensive Contact For assault to be actionable the victim's apprehension must be of imminent harmful or offensive contact and that D has the present ability to carry out the threat. A4. False Imprisonment [15-20] Overview and Definition Defendant intentionally acts to cause confinement or restraint of the victim within a bounded area. Accidental confinement is not included and must be addressed under negligence or strict liability. [See Restatement 35-45A.] Intent Must show that D intended to confine him, or at least that D knew with substantial certainty that P would be confined by Ds actions. The transferred intent doctrine is applicable to false imprisonment. [See 1.01 [B], supra.] Bounded Area The victim must be confined within an area bounded in all directions. However, the bounded area can a large area. [Big Town Nursing Home v Newman] Means of Confinement or Restraint For false imprisonment to exist, the victim must be confined or restrained. The confinement may be accomplished by: (1) physical barriers; (2) force or threat of immediate force against the victim, the victim's family or others in her immediate presence, or the victim's property; (3) omission where the defendant has a legal duty to act; or (4) improper assertion of legal authority. The improper assertion of legal authority can unlawfully restrain a victim. This form of false imprisonment constitutes false arrest. The victim must submit to the arrest for it to constitute imprisonment. The arrest is improper if the actor imposing confinement is not privileged under the circumstances. [See Restatement 41.] [Enright v. Groves] Consciousness of Confinement False imprisonment requires that the victim be conscious of the confinement at the time of imprisonment. [See Parvi v. City of Kingston] The Restatement 42 modifies this

requirement and would find liability for false imprisonment, even when the victim is not aware of the confinement, if the victim is harmed by the confinement. Restatement (2nd) of Torts Sec 36: means of escape are unreasonable if it involves exposure of the person, material harm to the clothing, or danger of substantial harm to another. Means of escape must be reasonable CAN YOU BE LIABLE OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT BY AN ACT OF OMISSION? Generally speaking, not liable- not enough to demonstrate intent to confine FACTORS RELEVANT TO CREATION OF A DUTY TO RELEASE: 1. Relation of parties Ex: customer locks himself in rest room, or 2. Act of Defendant D unintentionally causes the confinement, or 3. Contract relevant but not controlling, or 4. Gratuitous Undertaking if P relies on Ds assurance, and enters confinement, D has a duty to release. A5. Trespass to Land The act of trespass occurs when: 1. D intentionally enter Ps land without permission 2. Remains on Ps land without the right to be there, even if she rightfully entered 3. D puts an object on (or refuses to remove an object from) Ps land without permission Intent Must have intent. No strict liability Mistake of Fact If D has intent to make physical contact with Ps land, Ds mistake about legal authority or consent is no excuse. Reasonableness of the mistake is irrelevant. Air Space Fly over can constitute trespass. However, courts generally limit liability to situations where (1) the plane/object enters into the immediate reaches of the airspace and (2) the flight substantially interferes with Ps use and enjoyment of his land.