Torts - Outline Part 2
Download the PDF version of this outline
<< Part 1 | Part 3 >>
- Damages
- P must show substantial harm or dispossession
- Remedy for Conversion:
- Treat it like a forced sale; P entitled to full value of item in question
- If successful, the P would get the value of the property and the D would get to keep the object
- Different ways to commit conversion:
- Acquiring possession
- Receiving
- Bona fide purchaser of stolen goods = conversion, even if unaware goods were stolen
- Transfer to 3rd person
- D transferring chattel to one who is not entitled to it
- Withholding good
- Refusing to return goods to owner; refusal lasts for substantial time
- Destruction
- Destroying or fundamentally altering good
- Damaging or altering it
- Killing animal, for example
- Disposing of good
Privileges - Process of analysis:
- First, has there been a tort?
- Second, are there privileges?
- You admit committing the tort, but the reason is defensible
- Consent
- Two types:
- Express
- Straightforwardly spoken or in writing
- Implied
- doesn’t have to be said outright or signed in writing
- Types:
- Course of conduct
- Social conventions
- Circumstances
- Relationship of parties
- You can withdraw implied consent
- Consent obtained by fraud = not valid consent
- Intoxication does not negate intent
- Consent can apply to any intentional tort
- Athlete’s consent
- In unusually violent sports (ex: football)
- Generally not considered consent to all injuries inflicted
- Scope of implied consent
- Liable for all contacts beyond ones impliedly consented
- Common sense review of what is involved in implied consent
- Significance of sport’s rules and customs
- Categories:
- Conduct allowed by rules
- Conduct punishable but not “beyond bounds” of sport
- Reckless or intentionally-harmful conduct beyond usual bounds
- Consent to criminal acts = not a privilege
- Consent, but withdrawn = actionable
- Emergency situations (with physicians):
- Consent not possible
- Risk of death or extreme bodily harm
- Reasonable person would agree
- No reason for patient to refuse
- Nominal damages can be given
- Self-Defense
- Affirmative defense = D must specifically plead + burden of proof on D
- One may use reasonable force in self defense if one reasonably believes it to be necessary
- Was decision to use force reasonable?
- Was the amount of force reasonable?
- Degree of force must be amount necessary to prevent the threatened harm
- Deadly force
- Can only be used if P is in danger of death or serious bodily harm
- Retaliation does NOT qualify as SD
- As soon as the attack has stopped = over
- SD can be employed as result of retaliation
- Mistake does NOT negate intent
- Mistake not defense, but mistake that is reasonable may be SD
- Can apply to mistake of identity, choice to use force, or amount of force used
- Here = unique bc mistake is allowed sometimes in SD compared to the handling of mistake in other defenses
- Verbal Provocation = not SD
- Physical provocation w offer of force = SD applies
- Question of reasonableness must be applied here
- Retreat:
- Do not have to retreat if less than deadly force
- Majority rule = do not have to retreat before use of deadly force, if justified
- Transfer of Privilege:
- Rules of transfer of intent apply here
- As long as you are privileged to shoot X, you are privileged to shoot P
- You can only transfer privilege bc intent transferred
- Otherwise P can sue for negligence
- SD = can be used for any intentional tort
- Must look at person causing intentional tort and then the conduct of SD
- Not the conduct of the P to be focused on; focus instead on the D
- Defense of Others
- Can use reasonable force in defense of others
- Rules identical to SD, except over issue of mistake
- Mistakenly defending someone else = liable?
- No clear majority rule:
- Half of jurisdictions = look at person defended
- Since A liable, D is liable
- Other half = D liable
- Question of whether D acted reasonably
- Defense of Property
- When invasion is peaceful + occurs in the presence of the possessor = use of any force is unreasonable
- Law of opinion that once something is stolen, it’s over; must take to court then
- Rule of fresh pursuit in recovery of property addresses this
- Reasonable mistake
- If D’s mistake about whether force necessary = protected
- Ex: non-deadly force to stop burglar believed to be armed
- If mistaken about whether intruder has right to be there = not privileged
- Deadly force
- Where non-deadly force will not suffice
- Owner reasonably believes that w/o deadly force, death or serious harm will occur
- Mechanical devices:
- Katko v. Briney = no go; the home alone approach (or SAW, depending on how fucked up as a person you are) doesn’t apply
- A question of intent will be reviewed
- Intent proven through review of how Briney set up the shotgun trap
- Recovery of Property
- Fresh pursuit
- If D notices property is taken as it is happening, pursuit begins promptly, is continuous, and demand made = reasonable force can be used in the recovery of property
- Right to regain property without unreasonable violence
- If owner of property voluntarily relinquishes the property, recovery must be made peacefully; otherwise must seek legal help
- Rules can always escalate into SD role = escalation of reasonable force (even to deadly) then allowed
- Shopkeeper’s privilege
- If they reasonably believe that someone has committed theft (or is about to), they are allowed a reasonable detention and investigation for a reasonable amount of time
- Time frame = long enough to call the police
- Must have reasonable force; can’t be deadly
- Necessity
- Private
- Not liable to trespass to chattel, conversion, trespass to property under private necessity
- Necessity = key element
- Protecting self from serious damage or life
- D still has to compensate P for damage to property
- Privilege = D cannot be ejected from property
- Public
- Not liable for trespass to chattel, trespass to land, or conversion if not acting in the public good (protecting the public at large or public property)
- To community or to many people
- No right of compensation under CL
- You do not have to be a gov employee to exercise it and don’t have to be successful in endeavor
- Authority of Law
- Privileged
- Police officers, military, prison officials, regulatory inspectors, + mental health facility officials
- Liable only if acting improperly
- Ex: excessive force
- Mistakes in good faith also not protected
- Discipline
- Mostly privileged
- Relationships it applies to
- Parent and child
- Military + naval officers and subordinates
- Master of ship over crew and passengers
Client Reviews
★★★★★
I am so fortunate to have had Bill Powers on my case. Upon our first meeting, Bill insisted that through the emotions of anger, sadness, confusion, and betrayal that I remain resilient. He was available to answer questions with researched, logical, truthful answers throughout our two-year stretch together. I went to any lengths for my case because he won my trust almost immediately. JR
★★★★★
I contacted over 20 attorneys and Bill Powers was the only one that got back to me and was willing to help. He was kind and professional. He helped me get answers that I have been trying to get for years. I am so thankful for all his help and would recommend him easily. Simply FANTASTIC. EP
★★★★★
Bill Powers contacted me very shortly after I submitted an inquiry. He is incredibly knowledgeable about laws and all the requirements in North Carolina. When working with him, he patiently answered any and all questions I had in great detail. I always had the feeling he was looking to help ME, and not all about business. I would HIGHLY recommend Bill Powers and his law firm to anyone needing help in the area. You will be very happy with the result! CL