Intentional Tort

js5389's version from 2016-01-15 14:03

Intentional Torts


Question Answer
Vosburg v. Putney11 kicks 14 in leg in classroom, wound revivifies. 11's act was wrongful, so he is liable for consequences.
Garratt v. Dailey6 moves chair. Lady falls. Was it wrongful?
White v. U. IdahoWhite tries to play somebody’s back, she loses rib. Court rejects restatement and finds him liable even though he didn’t intend wrongful act.
Wagner v. UtahMentally impaired man commits battery since he had th intent to do act; apprehension of consequences unimportant.
White v. MunizAlzheimer’s lady assaults aide, not liable because she lacked awareness of wrongfulness or consequences
Talmage v. SmithStick in eye of wrong guy. Intent transfers.
Shaw v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corptrucker gets cancer from cabinmate, sues cig company. Don’t want to open flood gates, also -- “generalized knowledge not enough to satisfy intent for battery”
Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communicationsradio host blows real smoke into anti-smoker’s face. Court finds battery based on purposeful harmful conduct (just knowing would not be sufficient.)


Question Answer
Dougherty v. SteppGuy surveys land that isn't his, doesn't do any major damage, though. But trespass on property is recoverable for even if there is minimal damage. Also, strict liability.
Hutchinson v. SchimmelfederRe-grading, don’t let your dirt go on other guy’s plot.
Neiswonger v. Goodyearplane w/in 500 feet, trespass! But it may be legit depending on the situation.
Brown v. Dellinger7 & 8 burn down house -- igniting fire made them trespassers, liable for consequences.
Cleveland Park Club v. PerryKid sticks ball in drain, thinking no suction. “intent controlling is to complete the physical act and not the intent to cause injurious consequences”
Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Van Wyknoise, radiation, and electromagnetic fields -- harm needs to be intentional and serious or substantial. floodgates


Question Answer
Mohr v. WilliamsEar surgery on unexpected ear--no consent, patient unconscious. technically A&B--no 'must' for unlawful intent (vs. crim law), unlawful act sufficient.
Kennedy v. Parrottsurgeon punctures ovarian cysts, results in spider veins, but we have moved from Mohr and now if 1) “exercise of judgment sound" and 2) surgery required and 3) no consent available, you're cool
Hoofnel v. Segalsigned consent allowed removal of “female parts” although patient's “unambiguous words” said no… signed consent confirms are powerful.
O’Brien v. Cunard Steamship Co.O’Brien gets second small pox vaccine and sues, but consent was implied in fact and barred cause of action (she lifted her arm, she didst not protest, etc.)
Scloendorff v. Society of New York Hospitalemergency rule; unauthorized surgery is A&B except in cases of emergency, where the patient is unconscious and it is necessary to operate before consent can be obtained
Allore v. Flower Hospital