Under the influence of a danger,” there is NO voluntary act! “pressing Self-preservation is excusable. Threat must be and pressing; D must have NO options OR immediate no to consider other options. time Offensive OR Harmful Contact Offensive Offensive contact = objective standard: 1. Would a reasonable unduly sensitive” person find the “not contact offensive? OR 2. Was D aware that P would find contact offensive (known to be unduly sensitive P)? Context matters (public/private) Paul v. Holbrook (1997) - D (coworker) massaged P (employee) at the office and sexually harassed her Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications, Inc (1994): radio show hosts well-known anti-smoking advocate, host blows smoke in his face repeatedly during show Smoke (particulate matter) CAN make offensive contact. Offensive contact to known unduly sensitive P. Does NOT create a smoker’s battery b/c not harmful contact, only offensive contact due to P’s known sensitivity. Madden v. D.C. Transit System (1973): P was standing on a traffic island and a bus went by spewing substance” and fumes at P “oily Not harmful contact, but was it offensive? NOT by a reasonable objective standard. Also, NO intent to make contact by the bus system. Policy considerations for need of public transport. Protective zone around person: extension of personality (e.g.-hit plate out of hand) Other things to think about: Children CAN be liable for intentional torts (Vosberg) Sovereign immunity Can NOT discharge debt of intentional torts in bankruptcy (In Re White) Liability =/= deep pockets/insurance Assault Elements: (1) intentional infliction of (2) reasonable apprehension of (3) imminent battery through (4) voluntary action by D Intent
Under the influence of a “pressing danger,” there is NO voluntary act! Self-preservation is excusable. Threat must be immediate and pressing; D must have NO options OR no time to consider other options. Offensive OR Harmful Contact Offensive Offensive contact = objective standard: 1. Would a reasonable “not unduly sensitive” person find the contact offensive? OR 2. Was D aware that P would find contact offensive (known to be unduly sensitive P)? Context matters (public/private) Paul v. Holbrook (1997) - D (coworker) massaged P (employee) at the office and sexually harassed her Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications, Inc (1994): radio show hosts well-known anti-smoking advocate, host blows smoke in his face repeatedly during show Smoke (particulate matter) CAN make offensive contact. Offensive contact to known unduly sensitive P. Does NOT create a smoker’s battery b/c not harmful contact, only offensive contact due to P’s known sensitivity. Madden v. D.C. Transit System (1973): P was standing on a traffic island and a bus went by spewing “oily substance” and fumes at P Not harmful contact, but was it offensive? NOT by a reasonable objective standard. Also, NO intent to make contact by the bus system. Policy considerations for need of public transport. Protective zone around person: extension of personality (e.g.-hit plate out of hand) Other things to think about: Children CAN be liable for intentional torts (Vosberg) Sovereign immunity Can NOT discharge debt of intentional torts in bankruptcy (In Re White) Liability =/= deep pockets/insurance Assault Elements: (1) intentional infliction of (2) reasonable apprehension of (3) imminent battery through (4) voluntary action by D Intent
Torts_-_Wyman_Fall_2010_Outline.docx