# Torts I — Intentional Torts (Battery, Assault, False Imprisonment, IIED, Trespass), Privileges & Affirmative Defenses

> Comprehensive MBE black-letter law on battery, assault, false imprisonment, IIED, trespass to land/chattels, conversion, transferred intent, consent, self-defense, defense of others/property, and necessity.

- **Canonical URL:** https://flashcards.world/flashcards/sets/338f5836-99c3-47a5-a18f-1f2ba897a908/
- **Markdown URL:** https://flashcards.world/flashcards/sets/338f5836-99c3-47a5-a18f-1f2ba897a908.md
- **Level:** basic
- **Languages:** en → en
- **Total Cards:** 32

## Flashcards (32 Cards)

| # | Front (Term / Prompt) | Back (Definition / Answer) | Example | Multiple-Choice Options |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 1 | In an Assault action, what is the distinction between 'apprehension' and 'fear'? | Apprehension does not mean fear, terror, or panic; it means sensory awareness or expectation that an unconsented contact is about to occur. Even if the plaintiff is confident they can easily defend against or defeat the attack, reasonable apprehension exists so long as the plaintiff is aware of the impending contact. |  |  |
| 2 | What are the four prima facie elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)? | 1. Extreme and Outrageous Conduct by the defendant; 2. Intent to cause severe emotional distress or Reckless disregard of the high risk of causing such distress; 3. Causation; and 4. Severe Emotional Distress suffered by the plaintiff (actual distress so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it). |  |  |
| 3 | What constitutes the 'plaintiff's person' for the purpose of a Battery claim? | The plaintiff's physical body and anything intimately connected to or held by the plaintiff at the time of contact (e.g., clothing, a cane, a plate being held, a horse being ridden, or an umbrella in hand). Landmark: Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc. (1967) held that snatching a plate from a person's hand with insulting words constituted battery because the plate was an extension of the person. |  |  |
| 4 | Under what conditions may an individual use non-deadly force in Self-Defense? | A person is privileged to use reasonable, non-deadly force to defend against imminent, unlawful bodily harm whenever they reasonably believe that such force is necessary. Requirements: • Threat must be imminent (not past or future); • Force used must be reasonably proportional to the threatened harm; • A reasonable mistake as to the necessity or degree of force does not destroy the privilege. |  |  |
| 5 | What constitutes a 'bounded area' in False Imprisonment, and what makes a means of escape 'reasonable'? | • Bounded Area: Freedom of movement must be restricted in all directions. Simply blocking one direction or preventing passage along a public road when other paths are open is not false imprisonment. • Means of Escape: An area is not bounded if there is a reasonable means of escape known to the plaintiff. An escape route is unreasonable if it involves physical danger, exposure of person, humiliation, or substantial harm to clothing/property. |  |  |
| 6 | Under what circumstances do mere words constitute an Assault, and what effect do conditional words have? | • Mere words alone generally do not constitute assault unless accompanied by an overt hostile act or threatening physical conduct. • Conditional or negating words can negate assault if they make clear that no immediate harm will occur (e.g., Tuberville v. Savage: 'If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you' negated immediate threat). |  |  |
| 7 | What are the requirements for the privilege of Recapture of Chattels? | 1. Wrongful taking: The owner must have been tortiously dispossessed of the chattel (fraud, force, or theft; not peaceful bailment); 2. Fresh pursuit: The owner must act promptly in fresh/hot pursuit upon discovering the taking; 3. Demand: A demand for return must precede force unless useless or dangerous; and 4. Force: Only reasonable non-deadly force may be used. Deadly force is strictly prohibited. |  |  |
| 8 | What are the three essential requirements of the Shopkeeper's Privilege affirmative defense to False Imprisonment? | 1. Reasonable Grounds: The merchant must have a reasonable belief (probable cause) that the detainee committed or attempted theft/shoplifting; 2. Reasonable Manner: The detention must be conducted in a reasonable, non-deadly manner and only non-deadly force may be used; and 3. Reasonable Duration: The detention must be for a reasonable, limited period of time necessary to conduct a brief investigation or await police arrival. |  |  |
| 9 | What are the elements of Trespass to Chattels, and how does damage affect liability? | Elements: 1. An intentional act by defendant interfering with the plaintiff's right of possession in a chattel; 2. Causation; and 3. Actual damages (intermeddling or dispossession). Unlike trespass to land, actual damages are required: the chattel must suffer physical impairment of condition, quality, or value; the possessor must be deprived of its use for a substantial time; or bodily harm must result. |  |  |
| 10 | What is the Parental and Educator Privilege to Discipline? | Parents and those in loco parentis (such as teachers and school administrators) are privileged to use reasonable force to discipline and control minor children under their supervision. Limits: • The force must be reasonably necessary for the child's proper control, training, education, or welfare; • The force must be moderate and proportionate (excessive force, sadism, or deadly force destroys the privilege and creates battery/criminal liability). |  |  |
| 11 | What are the four prima facie elements of the intentional tort of Battery? | 1. An act by the defendant; 2. Intent to cause harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff's person (or substantial certainty that such contact will occur); 3. Harmful or offensive contact actually results (directly or indirectly); 4. Causation (the defendant's act legally caused the contact). |  |  |
| 12 | What are the three prima facie elements of the intentional tort of Assault? | 1. An act by the defendant creating a reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff of an immediate harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff's person; 2. Intent to cause such apprehension or to cause the contact itself; and 3. Causation. |  |  |
| 13 | How does the doctrine of Transferred Intent operate, and to which five intentional torts does it apply? | Transferred intent applies when the defendant intends an intentional tort against one person (or property) but instead inflicts that tort or another tort on a different person (or property). The required intent transfers. It applies strictly to the five historic trespass writ torts (FIT-BA): 1. Battery 2. Assault 3. False Imprisonment 4. Trespass to Land 5. Trespass to Chattels It does NOT apply to Conversion or IIED. |  |  |
| 14 | How do airspace and subsurface rights apply to Trespass to Land? | • Subsurface: The landowner owns beneath the surface down to reasonable depths; tunneling or drilling under someone else's land constitutes trespass. • Airspace: Under United States v. Causby (1946), landowners own only as much of the space above the ground as they can occupy or use in connection with the enjoyment of the land (the immediate reaches of the airspace). High-altitude flights do not trespass unless they invade immediate reaches and interfere substantially with use. |  |  |
| 15 | What are the legal limitations on the use of force in Defense of Property, and what did Katko v. Briney establish? | • Force Limits: A possessor may use only reasonable non-deadly force to prevent an unlawful intrusion upon or dispossession of property. Request to desist is required first unless futile or dangerous. • Deadly Force Prohibition: Deadly force is NEVER permitted solely to protect real or personal property. • Katko v. Briney (1971): The use of a spring-gun or automated deadly mechanical device to protect an uninhabited farmhouse against trespassers/burglars was held unlawful because human life and limb outweigh property interests. |  |  |
| 16 | What is the scope of the privilege of Defense of Others, and how is an intervenor's reasonable mistake treated? | A person may use reasonable force to defend a third party if the actor reasonably believes the third party would have the right to use self-defense. • Modern / Majority Rule: A reasonable mistake is protected. If the defender honestly and reasonably believes the third party is being unlawfully attacked, the defender is privileged even if the third party was actually the initial aggressor. • Minority ('Alter Ego' Rule): Defender steps into the shoes of the third party; if the third party had no right of self-defense, the defender is liable despite good-faith mistake. |  |  |
| 17 | What factors distinguish Trespass to Chattels from Conversion under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 222A? | 1. Extent and duration of the actor's exercise of dominion or control; 2. The actor's intent to assert a right inconsistent with the other's right of control; 3. The actor's good faith or bad faith; 4. Extent and duration of the resulting interference with the other's right of control; 5. Harm done to the chattel; 6. Inconvenience and expense caused to the plaintiff. |  |  |
| 18 | What is the privilege of Public Necessity, and what liability does the actor incur? | Public Necessity is a complete, absolute privilege allowing an actor to enter, destroy, or appropriate private property to prevent an imminent public disaster (e.g., dynamiting private buildings to stop the spread of a citywide fire, as in Surocco v. Geary, or preventing flood damage). Liability: The actor incurs NO liability for actual or nominal damage to the private property, provided the actor acted under a reasonable belief of impending public catastrophe. |  |  |
| 19 | What are the elements of Trespass to Land, and does it require actual physical damage? | Elements: 1. Physical invasion of the plaintiff's real property; 2. Intent to enter or cause a physical thing to enter the land (or remaining on the land without permission); 3. Causation. Actual damage is NOT required; nominal damages are awarded to vindicate the property owner's exclusive right to possession. Good-faith mistake as to land ownership or boundary lines is NOT a defense. |  |  |
| 20 | What is the majority vs. minority rule regarding the use of Deadly Force and the Duty to Retreat in Self-Defense? | • Deadly Force Standard: Permitted only when the actor reasonably believes they face an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. • Majority ('Stand Your Ground'): No duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, even if safe retreat is available. • Minority ('Duty to Retreat'): Must retreat if known safe retreat is available, EXCEPT in the actor's own dwelling ('Castle Doctrine'), where retreat is never required. |  |  |
| 21 | How do Nominal, Compensatory, and Punitive Damages apply to intentional torts? | • Nominal Damages: Available for dignitary intentional torts (battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land) even in the complete absence of physical or economic injury, to vindicate the violated legal right. • Compensatory Damages: Full recovery for all physical, mental, emotional, and economic losses directly caused, governed by the Eggshell Skull Rule. • Punitive Damages: Awardable when the defendant's conduct was committed with actual malice, ill will, spite, or reckless indifference to the plaintiff's rights. |  |  |
| 22 | What are the prima facie elements of False Imprisonment? | 1. An intentional act or omission by the defendant that confines or restrains the plaintiff; 2. To a bounded area; 3. Causation; and 4. The plaintiff must either be conscious of the confinement at the time it occurs OR suffer actual physical harm as a result of the confinement (Restatement Second § 35). |  |  |
| 23 | What are the common law arrest privileges for felonies committed by police officers vs. private citizens? | • Police Officers: Privileged to arrest without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe a felony has been committed and that the arrestee committed it (reasonable mistake of fact as to whether felony occurred is protected). • Private Citizens: Privileged to arrest without a warrant ONLY if: (1) a felony has in fact been committed in reality, AND (2) the citizen has reasonable grounds to believe the arrestee committed it. A mistake as to whether a felony actually occurred defeats the citizen's privilege. |  |  |
| 24 | What is the legal standard for determining whether a physical contact is 'offensive' in a Battery claim? | An objective reasonable person standard: contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity (Restatement Second of Torts § 19). Hypersensitive Plaintiff Rule: If the contact would not offend a normal, reasonable person, it is not battery unless the defendant had actual advance knowledge of the plaintiff's unique hypersensitivity and deliberately exploited it. |  |  |
| 25 | When can a plaintiff recover for IIED based on extreme and outrageous conduct directed at a third party? | Under Restatement Second of Torts § 46(2), the defendant is liable if the plaintiff is present at the time and: 1. The third person is a member of the plaintiff's immediate family, AND the defendant knows the plaintiff is present (physical bodily injury is NOT required); OR 2. The third person is a non-family member, the defendant knows the plaintiff is present, AND the distress results in bodily harm / physical illness to the plaintiff. |  |  |
| 26 | What are the elements of Conversion, and what is the standard remedy? | Elements: 1. An intentional act by defendant exercising dominion or control over a chattel; 2. Which so seriously interferes with the plaintiff's right of control as to justly require the defendant to pay the full value of the chattel; 3. Causation. Remedy: A 'forced sale'—the plaintiff recovers the fair market value (FMV) of the chattel computed at the time and place of the conversion, plus interest, or the return of the chattel (replevin) plus damages. |  |  |
| 27 | What constitutes 'extreme and outrageous conduct' in an IIED claim? | Conduct that exceeds all possible bounds of decency tolerated by a civilized society (mere insults, bad manners, indignities, or hurtful language do not qualify). Conduct may become outrageous if: • Repeated and continuous over time; • Committed by a party in abuse of authority/power (e.g., police officer, employer, landlord); • Targeted at a plaintiff known to be vulnerable (e.g., child, elderly person, pregnant woman); • Committed by common carriers or innkeepers against patrons. |  |  |
| 28 | What factors invalidate a plaintiff's consent to an intentional tort? | 1. Fraud in the Factum / Essential Nature: Fraud regarding the essential character of the act (e.g., consenting to an exam that is secretly sexual contact invalidates consent; fraud in the collateral inducement generally does not); 2. Duress: Physical threats or immediate economic duress invalidates consent (threats of future financial harm do not); 3. Lack of Capacity: Infancy, mental incompetence, or severe intoxication known to the defendant; 4. Illegality: Majority rule holds consent to a criminal act is invalid if the criminal statute is designed to protect that class (e.g., statutory rape). |  |  |
| 29 | How is the intent requirement for Battery defined under the majority 'single intent' rule vs. the minority 'dual intent' rule? | • Single Intent (Majority / Restatement Third): The defendant need only intend to produce the physical contact itself; they do not need to intend that the contact be harmful or offensive, nor intend injury (e.g., Vosburg v. Putney). • Dual Intent (Minority / Restatement Second § 13): The defendant must intend both: (1) to cause the contact, AND (2) that the contact be harmful or offensive. |  |  |
| 30 | What is the privilege of Private Necessity, and what liability does the actor incur? | Private Necessity is an incomplete / qualified privilege allowing an actor to enter or interfere with another's property to prevent serious imminent harm to the actor's own person or property (or a small group of private individuals). Legal Consequence (Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co.): • The landowner cannot expel the actor (doing so makes the landowner liable); • The actor is NOT liable for nominal damages or trespass; • BUT the actor MUST pay for all actual damages caused to the landowner's property. |  |  |
| 31 | How does Express Consent differ from Implied Consent, and what is the effect of exceeding the scope of consent? | • Express Consent: Plaintiff explicitly grants permission through spoken words or writing. • Implied Consent: Consent inferred from custom, usage, or plaintiff's objective conduct/manifestations (e.g., participating in contact sports implies consent to contact within the rules of the game). • Scope Limitation: If the defendant exceeds the scope of consent granted, the defense is forfeited and liability attaches (e.g., Mohr v. Williams: patient consented to surgery on right ear; doctor operated on left ear without emergency, constituting battery). |  |  |
| 32 | What is the immediacy requirement in Assault? | The threatened contact must be imminent and immediate. Threats of future violence ('I will beat you tomorrow' or 'if you ever return to this town next week') do not satisfy the immediacy requirement for common law assault, as the plaintiff has sufficient opportunity to avoid the harm or seek legal protection. |  |  |

---
Study this deck interactively with FSRS-6 spaced repetition, audio review, and multiple-choice mode at [Flashcards World](https://flashcards.world/flashcards/sets/338f5836-99c3-47a5-a18f-1f2ba897a908/).