Answer Tort practice exam question #20 for intentional torts of Wolfe.

Outline

Assault

Battery

Trespass to land

Trespass to chattels

Conversion

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Nuisance

Defamation

Misrepresentation

Act by defendant

Intent

Transferred Intent

Causation

Damages;

Compensatory

General

Special

Punitive

Replevin, detinue, claim, and delivery.

Capacity

Defenses;

Defense of property

Consent

Self-defense

Defense of others

Recovery of Property

Necessity (public or private)

Defense issues;

Deadly force

Shopkeepers' privilege

Threats of force

Mechanical devices

Mistake of law

Answer:

Activity on the pier

When Wolfe tied his yacht to Montcalm's pier, he trespassed on Montcalm's property. Wolfe's use of the rope is a trespass to chattels or possible conversion because the rope was destroyed. When the rope broke and the yacht scraped Montcalm's boat a trespass to chattels occurred. Wolfe will defend against these torts with necessity. Wolfe will claim that his yacht lost power, the sun had set, and he was in a remote sparsely inhabited area. Wolfe will argue that the injury to the rope and boat is substantially less than what would have occurred to his yacht had he not docked. Montcalm's estate will argue that even though privileged to land, the landing was one of private necessity an incomplete privilege. Under an incomplete privilege, Wolfe is liable for all damage to the land or chattels.

Activity at the house

Wolfe and his crew decided to falsely imprison the Montcalm and took the path to the home and surrounded it. When Wolfe exited the door he did not hear the ransom demand because his hearing aid was off. Because Montcalm was not aware or harmed by the confinement, Wolfe and his crew are not liable for false imprisonment. In addition, Wolfe has not committed an assault by demanding a ransom for Montcalm's release as his hearing aid was off. However, Wolfe will be liable for a trespass for using the path to the house. Wolfe is liable for all damage caused by his trespassing and foreseeability is not an issue.

Wolfe's storming of the house is a trespass to land and a trespass to chattels (the door). The subsequent threatening of Montcalm is not an assault as Montcalm is unaware of the events and is not in apprehension of an immediate battery. However, Abraham feared for his life and began to run. Under the doctrine of transferred intent, Wolfe will be liable for an assault on Abraham.

Wolfe's killing of Montcalm is a battery on Montcalm and a battery on Abraham under transferred intent as the bullet passed through Montcalm and hit Abraham.

Wolfe has behaved very badly and is liable for punitive damages and may be liable for an intentional infliction of emotional distress to Abraham as Wolfe's conduct was so outrageous as to exceed all bounds of decency. However, Wolfe may claim that he did not know Abraham was present and avoid this civil liability. In any event, because of the intentional torts against Abraham, Abraham will be able to recover for his emotional distress as a parasitic damage to the intentional torts.

© 2007- 2021 Abn Study Partner

Register to get FREE access

Torts

Purchase subscription to access content.