Intentional torts involve situations in which the defendant desires or knows to a substantial certainty that his act will cause the plaintiff damage.
They include battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"), trespass to land, trespass to chattels, conversion, invasion of privacy, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, fraud, inducing breach of contract, intentional interference with business relations, and defamation of character (libel/slander).
This element typically requires the defendant to desire or know to a substantial certainty that something will occur as a result of his act.
For an example in battery, Dave shoots a gun into a crowd of people because he is specifically trying to hit someone with a bullet.
For example, if Dave has a muscle spasm that makes his arm fling out to his side and hit Paula, who is standing next to him, any case that Paula attempts to bring against Dave for battery will fail for lack of the requisite act (which will be discussed in the section on battery, below).
Therefore, there is a variety of ways in which a person can commit a battery, as illustrated by the following examples of defendant Dave and plaintiff Paula.
She suddenly falls into a deep sleep while feeding the chickens in a barn on Dave's farm in a remote area.
Not wanting to move her, Dave locks her in the barn from the outside when he needs to go into town, trying to protect her but also knowing that she won't be able to leave (or call for help) if she wakes up.
This is a notable exception to the general rule given above that for almost all intentional torts only desire or knowledge to a substantial certainty will do.
In other words, emotional distress will not be deemed to exist in those jurisdictions unless there are physical manifestations, such as vomiting or fainting.
Seriousness is determined by the following factors: The remedy for this cause of action not only requires the defendant to pay the plaintiff the full value of the chattel but also is properly considered a forced sale.
Dave attempts to exercise the privilege of defense of property, as Paula would ordinarily be committing a trespass to land in this situation, and unties the vessel.
For example, if Paula intentionally punctures her fuel tank just so she can race over to Dave's dock and tie up, she will not have a valid privilege of private necessity.
Some jurisdictions recognize one or more designations less than actual intentional wrongdoing, but more egregious than mere negligence, such as "wanton", "reckless" or "despicable" conduct.
Judge Learned Hand famously reduced this to algebraic form in United States v. Carroll Towing Co.:[4] Where
Breach can be shown in most jurisdictions if a defendant violates a statute that pertains to safety and the purpose of which is to prevent the result of the case.
For example, where ten percent of a certain industry does a certain thing, it probably will not be considered a custom for purposes of breach in negligence.
Res ipsa loquitur requires that the defendant have exclusive control over the thing that causes the injury and that the act be one that would not ordinarily occur without negligence.
As a matter of public policy, most courts will nonetheless hold Dan and Dave jointly and severally liable.
In this situation too, most courts will hold all the defendants that Paula names (possibly everyone on the medical staff that was in the room during her surgery) jointly and severally liable.
Justice Cardozo has two factors to determine if there was a proximate cause between the plaintiff's injury and the defendant's breach of duty: Justice Andrews has several factors to determine if there was a proximate cause between the plaintiff's injury and the defendant's breach of duty: Historically at common law, spouses were not allowed to sue one another at all.
Even after this legal doctrine was abandoned with the adoption of the Married Women's Property Acts, many courts disallowed lawsuits between spouses other than divorce or criminal proceedings for the fear that it would disrupt marital harmony.
Scholars suggest this change in direction is due to the rise of tort suits arising out of automobile accidents.
[7] Courts declined to extend spouses the ability to sue each another after car accidents for fear of collusion and insurance fraud.
[7][9] This fear stems from the fact that both sides of a negligent car accident suit between spouses want the injured party to recover.
Punitive damage awards generally require a higher showing than mere negligence, but lower than intention.
For instance, grossly negligent, reckless, or outrageous conduct may be grounds for an award of punitive damages.
[10] Strict liability torts are brought for injuries resulting from ultrahazardous activities, for which the defendant will be held liable even if there was no negligence on his/her part.
§ 1983 remedy for violation of one's civil rights under color of federal or state law, which can be used to sue for anything from a free speech claim to use of excessive force by the police.
Tort claims arising out of injuries occurring on vessels on navigable waters of the United States fall under federal admiralty jurisdiction.