Torts Lecture One: Intentional Torts, Privileges, and Defenses (Part 1 of 2) (Part 2)

Intentional torts require a volitional act by the defendant and a specific intent to cause harm or offensive contact, or knowledge with substantial certainty that such a consequence will result. This purposeful interference distinguishes them from the unintentional nature of negligence and the focus on the act itself in strict liability.

Harmful contact in battery refers to contact that results in physical injury or pain to the plaintiff. Offensive contact, on the other hand, is contact that would offend a reasonable person's sense of personal dignity, even if it does not cause physical harm.

A key element required for assault, but not for battery, is that the plaintiff must have a reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact at the time the defendant acts. In battery, the plaintiff need not be aware of the contact when it occurs.

Confinement for false imprisonment involves intentionally restraining the plaintiff to a bounded area through physical barriers, force, threats, or failure to provide a means of escape when there is a duty to do so. Moral pressure or future threats are generally considered insufficient to constitute confinement.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct that exceeds all bounds tolerated by a civilized society and intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress. The threshold for outrageousness may be lowered if the defendant is in a position of power or if the plaintiff is known to be particularly vulnerable.

For trespass to land, the intent requirement applies only to the act of entering the land or causing a physical invasion. Knowledge that the land belongs to another is not necessary; even a mistaken belief of ownership does not negate the intent to enter.

The key distinction between trespass to chattels and conversion lies in the degree of interference with the plaintiff's personal property. Trespass to chattels involves a less significant interference resulting in dispossession or minor harm, while conversion involves a substantial interference requiring the defendant to pay the full market value of the chattel.

The doctrine of transferred intent states that if a defendant intends to commit one of five intentional torts (battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattels) against one person but instead commits a different one of these torts or affects a different person, the intent transfers. This holds the defendant liable despite the misdirected action.

The two broad categories of defenses to intentional torts discussed are consent-based defenses and protective privileges. An example of a consent-based defense is express consent to medical treatment, and an example of a protective privilege is self-defense against an imminent threat of unlawful force.

Under the majority rule, deadly force is permissible in self-defense only when the defendant reasonably believes they are facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. The force used must be proportionate to the threat.