Chapter 6A:Strict Torts and Intentional Torts

Chapter 6a:Strict Torts and Intentional Torts

Ben Hoyt, Becky Nekula, Brett Falkner, Sam Straatmann, Leah Orf, Laura Lasher, Chris Rimer, Michael Elliott, Tony Speno, and Bryce Jones

I. Summary of Torts

A tort is a wrongful act that results in injury to a person, property, or one’s reputation.The injured party can bring a civil lawsuit in order to obtain compensation for the wrongful act committed against them or their property. Civil torts are cases involving one private party against another while criminal cases involve the government confronting a defendant. The purpose of tort law is to reimburse the injured party, not punish the offender as in cases of criminal law. On the other hand, punitive damages may be given if the defendant’s actions were unruly or cruel. Punitive damages will be examined later in this chapter.

Tort cases are classified into three different types of wrongful acts:(1) negligent torts, (2) strict liability torts, and (3) intentional torts. To receive any compensation for damages for an intentional tort, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant carried out an inappropriate act with intent and causation.

Negligent torts are defined as the failure to exercise the degree of care that, under certain circumstances, the law requires for the protection of other persons or those interests of other persons that may be injuriously affected by the want of such care.

II.
Strict Liability

Strict liability is defined as a liability without fault.This means that fault does not have to be proven for the defendant to be found guilty, but the plaintiff does have to prove that the actions of the defendant caused the damage. In a strict liability case, the plaintiff does not need to prove intent, negligence, or recklessness by the defendant. Conversely, criminal liability in which requires the defendant to have performed the questionable act voluntarily.

Strict liability is founded on the voluntary decision by the defendant to participate in a risky activity. When a corporation engages in such an activity, they can pass the costs of this liability on to consumers by charging higher prices. Strict liability applies when injuries result from any of the following activities: keeping dangerous animals, abnormally dangerous activities, or are caused by a defective product that is unreasonably dangerous.

The majority of activities do not apply to strict liability. To establish strict liability the following must be proven:

1. Abnormally Dangerous Activities

Abnormally dangerous activities are activities with a risk of harm that cannot be removed by exercising reasonable care. Individuals or companies engaged in these activities will be strictly liable for any injuries caused by these activities. When dealing with abnormally dangerous activities, fault is not considered and the risk of injury is treated as a cost of engaging in the activity.

The doctrine of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities is derived from Rylands v. Fletcher. A party carrying on an abnormally dangerous business is strictly liable for damages. In order to determine whether an activity is abnormally dangerous, the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 520 lists six factors to be considered. (See box above) All of the factors are taken into consideration based on the particular case although all are not necessary for strict liability.

1. Employer’s Liability for Employee Negligence

An employer has several duties to his or her employees:

1. Warn of the hazards of employment
2. Supervise activities
3. Provide reasonably safe place to work
4. Provide reasonably safe instrumentalities for work

The employer must instruct the employees in safe handling techniques for using products and equipment. If an employer breaches the duty to their employees, they are liable for the employees’ injuries caused by that breach. Workers’ compensation laws were enacted to impose liability on employers for injuries, occupational diseases, and deaths of employees, thus eliminating common-law defenses available to employers.

1. Worker compensation is a no fault injury to worker
2. Employer is automatically liable when an employee harms another. Employer does not need to be at “Respondeat Fault Superior”. Employee may have to be at fault.

Under ordinary circumstances, according to tort law, the wrongdoer is the only one held liable. However, an exception occurs for an employer to be held liable for the torts of his or her employees if the employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the injury. The scope of one’s employment refers to doing the employer’s business at the time of the tort. The reasoning for this exception is to ensure that the injured party be reimbursed in times that the employee is financially unable to pay. The employer will have to recognize this liability as an ordinary cost of doing business.

C.Strict Liability for Products

Under strict liability, the manufacturer is held liable if the product it sells is defective, even if the manufacturer was not negligent. Strict liability only applies to those who regularly sell products. The idea of strict liability had been around as early as the 1930s, however, it was recognized as an individual tort in the court case Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.in 1963.

In most states, the plaintiff must prove the following in order to recover under strict liability:

1. The product was defective.
2. The product left the defendant in a defective condition.
3. The product was unreasonably dangerous due to the defect.
4. The defect was the proximate cause of injury.

Proving that a product was defective often requires the use of experts. A product may also be defective if the seller fails to warn the buyer of a hidden danger in the product that makes it defective. In a suit against the manufacturer, the custody of the product will need to be traced back to the manufacturer. Everyone in the distribution chain may be liable. However, the seller of the final product can still be strictly liable if the product left the seller in a defective condition. Finally, the injury from the defective product must have been foreseeable to the plaintiff. Therefore, recovery can be extended to others whose injury is reasonably foreseeable, such as family members or bystanders.

The manufacturer has a defense, for example if the product is misused by the plaintiff which resulted in the injury. This misuse cannot be reasonably foreseen by the seller. Also, if the plaintiff knew of the dangerous defect, but used it anyway, they assumed the risk of injury and the manufacturer is no longer liable.

III. Intentional Torts

Intentional torts is a category of torts in which the defendant intends to do an act causing injury to the plaintiff. Intent is a desire or goal to do something. The person committing the tort is liable for all reasonably foreseeable harm caused by the act.

Another form of intent would be recklessness. Recklessnessis conduct whereby the person who is committing the act does not desire a harmful consequence but foresees the possibility and consciously takes the risk. Recklessness, while being a type of intent, is separate from intent. Recklessness is sometimes called willful and wanton conduct. The defendant or person who committed the tort is aware of the risk or potential of harm created by a behavior but is indifferent as to whether or not it will occur.

A.Intentional Torts Against Persons

1. Crimes with Victims

Each tort case has to be supported by a standard of proof known as preponderance of the evidence. This is not to be confused with the beyond-a-reasonable doubt burden found in criminal cases. If a plaintiff wins a tort case, they can receive either two kinds of damages from the defendant. The first is compensatory damages. These kinds of damages are recovered for the damage that the plaintiff suffered as a result of the defendant’s unjust actions. These damages could be for harms such as physical injuries, medical expenses, and lost wages or benefits.Emotional distress, loss of privacy, or injury to reputation may also result in compensatory damages. The second kind of damages that a plaintiff can recover is punitive damages. Punitive damages are not intended to be given back to tort victims for their losses. They are intended to punish the defendant and discourage them, as well as others, from committing similar civil wrongdoings in the future. Punitive damages are not often imposed on the losing defendant in a tort case.

2. Assault and Battery

When a person’s personal security is attacked, a person has breached the duty to refrain from attacking another person. This tort is known as assault and battery and involves the physical touch of another person intentionally and unlawfully.

Batteryis defined as an unwanted intentional physical contact or invasion of the victim’s freedom that is not permitted. It includes both harmful (causing bodily injury) and non-harmful contact in a way that may be offensive to that person or demeaning to their dignity. In order to be found guilty for battery, one has to have either the intent to cause harmful or offensive contact or the intent to apprehend someone in which there is a possibility that harmful or offensive contact may have occurred.

Battery is not only limited to the original person that was threatened by the offender, but also to anyone harmed by the offender’s actions. This concept of transferred intent reveals that the person to whom the wrongdoing is done does not have to be the person to whom the harm was intended.

It is not necessary for the plaintiff to be aware of the crime at the instant it happened. For example,if the plaintiff is unconscious at the time of the tort he or she will still have a claim. However, the battery charge cannot be applied if the plaintiff gave permission to the defendant. Voluntary contact is, however, limited to the normal consequences of the activity.

Assault is causing fear of a harmful or offensive bodily contact. It is the threat to inflict immediate bodily injury, whereas battery is the actual physical contact, which typically follows the assault. Examples of an assault include threatening to strike someone, advancing toward someone with a violent expression, and pointing a weapon toward someone.

If the plaintiff wants to prove the tort of assault, they must have previously been aware of the defendant’s demeanor and believed to have been threatened by the defendant.Like battery, the terms for intent are the same. In an assault case, it is not necessary to actually harm the victim. The plaintiff must show that they were worried about their own safety as a result of the defendant’s actions. The person being threatened must fear that the threat was to be carried out at the present time, rather than in the future. Threatening words are not usually grounds alone for assault charges unless they are accompanied by immediate acts that show intent to be carried out.

3. Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress

Intentional infliction of mental distress can be defined as wrongfully interfering with a person’s peace of mind by acting or using words to cause severe emotional distress to another person. The conduct must be extreme and outrageous for the tort to occur.In order for courts to rule in favor of the plaintiff on grounds of emotional distress, the conduct of the defendant must have been outrageous or beyond all boundaries of decency. It is also known as the tort of outrage.

For years, courts did not recognize or allow judgment based only on emotional injuries. The defendant must have committed one of the recognized torts. Only victims of assault, battery, and false imprisonment could recover damages for emotional injuries. The courts worried that if they recognized emotional distress as a separate tort there would be insignificant claims being processed. Most courts currently allow recovery of emotional injuries even if another tort is not in violation. This is due to the rise of confidence in the facts concerning emotional injuries. A final element of proof of suffering mental, emotional, or nervous distress is necessary. The determination of distress varies by state.

4. False imprisonment

False imprisonment is the interference with the victim’s freedom of movement.It is the intentional confinement of another person for a period of time without that person’s consent. It involves keeping someone trapped against his or her will using a physical barrier. It can also involve retaining possession of something owned by the victim that prevents them from moving freely.

It is not necessary for there to be intent to restrain or harm the victim. In order for false imprisonment to be a legitimate case, the plaintiff has to have no other reasonable means to escape, such as another exit that would be well known or obvious. The plaintiff must also be aware of the imprisonment at the time it is occurring. No liability is put on the defendant if the plaintiff consents to the confinement.

Merchant Protection Statutes are special statutes that have been instated to give store owners the right to stop, detain, and investigate anyone suspected of shoplifting. If the merchant reasonably believes that a person has stolen goods, they can restrain the suspect for a reasonable length of time and in a reasonable manner.

5. Defamation

Defamation is a false statement that wrongfully harms a person’s reputation, name, or character. The defendant’s statement must be both false and defamatory. The alleged defamatory statement must pertain to the plaintiff and hurt the reputation of the plaintiff or his or her standing in the community or deters others from associating with him or her. Defamatory statements do not generally apply to a group or organization unless the group is small enough that a certain member of that group can be distinguished as being affected by the statement.

The defense to a defamation case involves the plaintiff proving the truth. Privileges are granted in special cases because an individual’s right to reputation is not always the most important. An absolute privilege gives participants in judicial, legislative, and executive proceedings or from one spouse to another in private, protection against defamation suits. The purpose of absolute privilege is not to inhibit the freedom of expression which is necessary in each of these activities. Conditional privilegesinclude any communication made in good faith on any subject in which the person communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a duty.These privileges give the defendant certain entitlements and can be revoked if abused, mainly when the truth is disregarded even if the defendant is aware of the falsity.Communications made to police or employers are considered to have conditional privilege.

In order for a defendant to be liable for defamation, a third party has to hear the false statement directly. It requires publication, not necessarily widespread, but the plaintiff and the defendant must have heard the statement. A publisher is liable for defamation but a mere distributor of the defamatory statement is not liable because they have no control over what is published.

An example of the distinction of liability between publishers and distributors would be:

Defamation has two subcategories, libel and slander.

Libel is a malicious publication tending to injure the reputation of a person and expose him or her to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. Generally, libel includes only printed defamation, such as pictures, signs, or statutes but now encompasses defamed statements made on television, radio or the Internet. Libel may be against the memory of someone who is dead or the reputation of someone who is alive. Slander is spoken defamation. In order to satisfy the publication requirement of slander, the defamed statement only needs to be communicated to another party other than the person defamed.This process of communication to a third party is called publication. Libel tends to be more permanent than slander. Also, since slander isspoken it can be harder to prove.

Plaintiffs can recover damages with no proof of actual injury under libel. Presumed or actual damages do not have to be proven to compensate for any harm that occurs. Some statements are defamatory on their face and presumed to cause damage. These statements are referred to as libel per se or slander per se if false statements include that the plaintiff:

1. Committed a crime that could lead to imprisonment
2. Has a vile disease
3. Is guilty of serious sexual or professional misconduct
4. Is not able to perform professionally

Defenses to Defamation

1. Truth is always a defense. But the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove the truth of the statement. It is assumed that it is false unless it is proved to be true
2. Absolute Privilege. Prosecutors, judges, and politicians typically enjoy an absolute privilege. Even if they lie, they cannot be sued.
3. Qualified Privilege. Reports to police or employers by citizens have a qualified privilege as long as they have reason to believe there is suspicious behavior. They cannot lie.
4. Media Privilege. Newspapers, magazine, radio, TV, Internet Reporting have a privilege when they report on public figures. Public figures are people already well known to the public. The media are not liable unless malice is shown. “Malice” means that the defamatory statements were lies or made with no good reason to think they were true (reckless disregard for the truth).

Disparagement of property includes the common-law torts of slander of title and slander of quality. Disparagement differs from defamation because it relates to property rather than persons. Disparagement is generally harder to prove than defamation. The extent of monetary damages must be proven as well as the falseness and maliciousness of the statement.

Disparagement of title(slander of title) includes untrue statements that injure another’s interest in property. Slander refers to the type of law. The statement can be spoken or written. The statement must be both false and malicious.

Disparagement of quality (trade libels) is the publication of untrue statements of fact which claim that another person’s merchandise lacks the characteristics its vendors allege ithas or that the product is inadequate for the purpose for which it is being sold. This statement must cause loss through impairment in the salability of the merchandise or property. The person who speaks the slanderous statement is liable for the loss due to the publication if it could have been reasonably anticipated. As with slander of title, the statement can either be spoken or written. In this type of slander, malice or honest mistake is immaterial. Truth, most of the time, is a defense of defamation and the burden of proof is on the defendant.