Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotels, Inc. – P was eating lunch while at a conference hosted at D’s hotel when an individual employed by D snatched P’s plate and declared that a “Negro could not be served in the club.” P was not actually touched, and there was no apprehension of physical injury, but the interaction was highly embarrassing. Court found D liable for battery Words alones are insufficient Exception D knows that P is particularly sensitive to a certain type of contact Spivey v. Battaglia – D put his arm around P and pulled her head toward him in a “friendly, unsolicited hug” that ultimately caused P to suffer from partial facial paralysis. D knew that P was extremely shy and would be uncomfortable because of the contact. Court ultimately ruled in favor of D, but Joyce disagrees with the decision Includes threats to Person Property Economic well-being Family Misc. Words alone are insufficient to justify an assault False Imprisonment (FI) General Rule D’s act done with the intent to cause the direct restraint of the physical liberty of another without adequate legal justification. Important to evaluate P ability to escape or exit the confinement Breakdown The direct restraint Of one person Of the physical liberty Of another Without adequate Legal justification Includes being kept in OR out Elements Intent (Subjective test) Desire Knowledge to a substantial certainty Transferred intent applies Prank or short seizures do not invalidate false imprisonment Act
Strict Liability Strict Liability Template Activity (Animals or Abnormally Dangerous Activities) Cause-in-Fact (But For or Substantial Factor) Proximate Cause (Harm Resulted From Act & Nature of Activity Caused Harm) Damages Defenses (P Participated, Comparative Negligence, Vis Major, or Negligent Assumption of Risk) Animals Trespass Action Strictly Liable for Animal’s Trespass: Keepers of domesticated and undomesticated animals are strictly liable for damages resulting from the animal’s trespass on the property of another. Owners of dogs and cats, however, are not liable for their pets’ trespasses, unless the owners have been negligent or unless strict liability is imposed by state ordinance. Actions Other Than Trespass Domesticated Animals Liability Dependent on Knowledge and Nature of Animal: the keeper of domesticated animals – dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, and horses – is strictly liable for the harm those animals cause only if the keeper had (1) actual knowledge that the animal had a (2) particular trait or propensity that (3) caused the harm. Wild Animals Liability: the keepers of wild animals are strictly liable for any harm caused by those animals. Abnormally Dangerous Activity Rule Blackburn Rule – Liability Based Solely on Activity: The person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there any thing likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damages which is the natural consequence of its escape. Cairn Rule – Liability Based on Activity and Surrounding Circumstances: Same basic rule, but applies a circumstantial test to determine “non-natural” means. D is only liable for non-natural uses of the land. The factors to evaluate are: (1) the character of the activity; (2) the place and manner in which it is maintained; and (3) the relation to the surroundings. Rylands v. Fletcher: D constructed a reservoir. D failed to inspect the area and, therefore, was unaware of P’s mineshafts below the reservoir. Under the increased pressure from the reservoir, the mine shafts collapsed and water intruded into the area. HOLDING: When one person in managing his own affairs causes, however innocently, damages to another, it is obviously only just that he should be the party to suffer.