Summary: English For Law

Read the summary and the most important questions on English for Law

• 1 Intentional Torts

  This is a preview. There are 1 more flashcards available for chapter 1
  Show more cards here

• What is the main question surrounding TORT law?

  Is this defendant going to be liable to this plaintiff for the tort at issue?
  
  The subquestions you could ask are:
  1. Can the plaintiff prove every elements of thetort? 
  2. Are there any affirmative defenses to this tort?

• What is TRANSFERRED INTENT?

  Under the transferred intent doctrine, accepted by many USA courts, intent can be transferred between five torts and different victims within these five torts.
  
  Intent can transfer from intended to actual victim.
  Intent can transfer from intended to actual tort.
  
  Example: If A intends to assault B, but accidentally commits battery against B, A will be liable for the battery.

• What are the FIVE intentional torts that be transferred?

  1. Battery
     
  2. Assault
  3. False Imprisonment
  4. Trespass to Chattel
  5. Trespass to Land

  
  
  Example 2: 
  If the fiancé can prove that Carl was trespassing to land, which in this case she can, because Carl leaped over the fence and was in her garden, she can transfer the intent of trespassing to land to battery. Carl also wanted to intentionally commit trespass to land to his neighbour, but the actual victim turned out to be the fiancé, so the intent can be transferred to the actual victim here as well. 
  Carl leaps over Neighbor’s fence, intending to land onthe lawn. Instead, Carl lands on Neighbor’s Fiancé.

• Are INSANITY and INFANCY a defence form for Intentional Tort?

  Unlike in criminal law, neither insanity nor infancy is a defensefor an intentional tort. However, intent is subjective and requiresthat the defendant actually desires or be substantially certainthe elements of the tort will occur. Consequently, if thedefendant is extremely mentally impaired or very young, shemay not actually possess the requisite intent.

• 1.1 General Points

• How can someone prove intentional tort overall?

  1. ALL intentional torts require intent and causation.
     
  2. Plaintiff must prove by preponderance (overwicht) of evidence
  3. Hypersensitivity - Plaintiff's hypersensitivity should not be taken into account --> Analyse tort based on a person of average sensitivity (Would a normal person be offended/affected?)
  4. Incapacity

  • there is NO incapacity defence
  • ALL persons are capable of committing intentional torts
  • Applies to ANY incapacity

• 1.2.2 Assault

  This is a preview. There are 3 more flashcards available for chapter 1.2.2
  Show more cards here

• What are the three requirements for it to be assault?

  1. Intent
  2. Apprehension
  3. Imminent harmful or offensive contact  

• How can one prove the intent for assault to meet the first of three requirements?

  The defendant must desire or be substantially certain that her action will cause the apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. The transferred intent doctrine is applicable to assault.

• What is the difference between fear and apprehension?

  Several court decisions distinguish between "fear” and“apprehension.” The requisite apprehension of imminentcontact need not produce fear in the victim.

• Are words alone enough to determine assault?

  Words alone are not enough. Assault requires some accompanying physical conduct. But words may negate the threat.
  Example: Homer shakes his fist under your chin while saying, ‘’If you were not my best friend, I would punch you in the mouth’’.  In the case of you and homer being best friends the answer will be: No, because the words are negating the threat, and thus there is no reasonable apprehension of immediate contact
  —> If you and Homer are NOT best friends, the situation may be completely different

• 1.2.3 False Imprisonment

  This is a preview. There are 5 more flashcards available for chapter 1.2.3
  Show more cards here

• What is the definition of FALSE IMPRISONMENT?

  In false imprisonment, the defendant unlawfully acts to intentionally cause confinement or restraint of the victim within a bounded area. There must be no reasonable or apparent means of escape.
   --> Accidental confinement is not included and must be addressed under negligence or strict liability. The transferred intent doctrine is applicable to false imprisonment.