[0:03]What's up, barristers? My name is Super Cool, which is American for totally awesome. Speaking of awesome, because the Law Academy believes that learning the law should be simple and fun, I'm going to do you a favor. and explain nearly every intentional tort you'll encounter in your tort class or on your torque exam. Yeah, I'm talking, battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattel, and conversion. Let's do it. Like the facts in your overpriced case book or a fact pattern on your final exam, our journey into intentional torts begins with a true story. Well, kind of true. This way, when I explain the intentional torts, we have a working context, and you see how the law actually works and applies to situations. It was the night before Christmas, and all through the streets of London, not a creature was stirring, except for dear old Santa Claus. who had foreseeably stopped his sleigh at the home of the miserly sinner, Ebenezer Scrooge. You see, Scrooge was begrudgingly babysitting his coworker's adorable but stricken son, Tiny Tim. Tiny Tim was on Santa's list of deserving indiget children. As Santa characteristically squeezed down the chimney, Scrooge slithered down the hall in his jammies to see what was the fuss. To his utter surprise, it was indeed jolly old St Nicholas, in the flesh. Unaware that Santa even existed, Scrooge had left the traditional chocolate chip cookies on display, but had laced them with a sleeping potion. He thought it would be an innocent trick to play on poor Tiny Tim, who had quite the sweet tooth. Santa, never one to back down from a high-calorie treat, took a bite of the cookie and immediately dropped to the floor, bashing his head on the fire mantel. Tiny Tim, awakened by the commotion, hobbled into the living room, and realizing what Scrooge had done, became very emotional, which triggered an epileptic seizure. Tiny Tim swung wildly at Scrooge, but alas, his little limbs were too short to reach his miserly caretaker. Scrooge subdued Tiny Tim by kicking his crutch, which caused poor Tim to lose his balance and stumble clumsily to the floor. Suddenly, a ghost appeared to Scrooge and reminded him of all the poor children who would go without a proper Christmas. Filled with liberal guilt and Christmas spirit, Scrooge climbed to the rooftop where he was greeted by none other than Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer. Taking the reigns of Santa's sleigh, Scrooge took off into the night sky, delivering gifts around the globe. By morning, Scrooge returned the sleigh to its North Pole garage and had even doubled back to pick up his sleeping Santa. Santa's sleigh was in shambles due to Scrooge's reckless driving, and Santa's elves were left to pick up the pieces. And since no good deed goes unpunished, as fate would have it, the parties now find themselves in a bitter legal dispute for money damages. Now that story time is over. Let's get funky. What we're going to do is examine the ABCs of all of the intentional torts buried in that story. So here's the type of legal analysis your professor will be looking for both in class and on the exam. Let's start with Santa's legal claims against Scrooge. For starters, Santa can sue Scrooge for battery. A prima facie case for battery requires a voluntary act with intent to cause harmful or offensive contact. Oh yeah, and prima facie, that's just a fancy word for the elements of a tort. Let's take a look at these elements to see if Santa can win on a case of battery against Scrooge. Well, Scrooge did voluntarily act, because in order to place the potion in the cookies, he would have to voluntarily move his hands or fingers to pour the potion. Apparently, Scrooge's actions caused harmful contact to Santa, because upon contacting or eating the poison cookie, he fell and hit his head. But there's a problem with intent. Scrooge, he didn't really intend to harm anyone. It was just a prank. Also, Scrooge didn't intend for the prank to involve Santa at all. I mean, who knew Santa even existed? His joke was intended for Tiny Tim. Fortunately for Santa, Scrooge's argument doesn't work. First of all, there's a concept called transferred intent. Transferred intent takes the intent Scrooge had for Tiny Tim and transfers it over to Santa. So that an injured party doesn't end up with no legal remedy just because of a technicality. Secondly, tort law doesn't care whether Scrooge was only intending to make a joke. The test is not whether Scrooge meant to harm Santa, but whether he meant to invade Santa's interest. It's fair to argue that Scrooge intended to put someone to sleep without their consent. That's pretty much an invasion of someone's interest and satisfies the intent requirement. So Santa's got a pretty strong case for battery. Santa may also have a legal claim against Scrooge for false imprisonment. To establish a prima facie case for Scrooge having falsely imprisoned Santa, Santa will have to show that Scrooge intentionally acted to confine him to a bounded or fixed area. Since Scrooge left Santa in the confined boundaries of his home, in the dead of winter, late at night, on Christmas when there's no cabs, and without any means of magical four-legged transportation, it's probably fair to say that he intended to falsely imprison St Nick. But there is a compelling counter-argument. Scrooge is going to argue that because Santa didn't even come to until he was miles away from the confines of Scrooge's London home and back at the North Pole, then he can't satisfy false imprisonment because to establish a case for false imprisonment, you must be at least conscious of the fact that your ability to move your freedom has been interfered with. In other words, Santa had no clue he was falsely imprisoned because he was knocked out. But Santa may well have a claim for trespass to chattel against Scrooge. Chatel is a word this guy would have used. It means movable property like a car or a pet. To establish a prima facie case for trespass to chatel, Santa would have to show that Scrooge intentionally interfered with his right to possess his chatel or property and that the interference caused damages. The chatel we're talking about is the sleigh. If the case is established, then Santa will be entitled to the reasonable rental value of his sleigh or the cost of repairs to the sleigh. Since Scrooge purposefully took to the reins of Santa's sleigh, there's a strong argument for interference of Santa's right of possession. Also, the interference did cause damages, since the facts state that the sleigh was in shambles once it got back to the North Pole. Scrooge does have a counter-argument or defense against the trespass to chatel. You see, Scrooge can argue or defend that he was privileged or allowed to take the sleigh because he did so out of public necessity. That is, Scrooge stole the sleigh for the good of the boys and girls around the world and their need to believe in the spirit of Christmas. So he wasn't stealing, he was helping. The cool thing about the public necessity defense is that if the court buys it, then Scrooge won't even have to pay for the damages. Santa's got one last legal claim. It's a distant cousin of trespass to chatel, and it's called conversion. To establish a prima facie case for conversion, Santa will have to show that Scrooge intentionally exercised wrongful dominion over Santa's chatel without his consent. The difference between conversion and trespass to chatel is that as long as Scrooge exercised enough dominion or control over Santa's sleigh, then he will have to compensate him for the entire sleigh and not just the rental value or cost of repairs. The key is to analyze the level of dominion exercised over the property by considering things like how long the property was taken, whether Scrooge intended to steal it, and how harmless the use of the property was. Santa's best argument is that the sleigh was so seriously damaged that Scrooge's use amounts to more than a mere trespass to his property, but was as if Scrooge converted Santa's sleigh into his own property. And so he should have to pay for the entire thing. Scrooge's counter-argument is that he used the sleigh for a limited time and only in the span of time needed to complete the gift-giving for Christmas, and then he returned the sleigh. In other words, Scrooge is arguing that he was not treating the sleigh as if it were his own because he only used it for its intended purpose, delivering Christmas gifts, and only for a short time before returning it to its rightful owner, Santa, and his minion elves. Also, like Scrooge's defense to trespass to chatel, he will make a public necessity argument here as well. You know what? Santa can't have all the fun. Scrooge has a legal claim against Santa too. It's called trespass to land. To establish a prima facie case for trespass to land, Scrooge must show that Santa intended to enter upon the land that Scrooge possessed without consent. Scrooge will argue that since Santa landed his sleigh and climbed down the chimney to plant a gift in the home where Tiny Tim was sleeping that he intended to enter the land owned by Scrooge.
[10:10]Santa will counter that while he had intended to enter the home, his intent was not trespass but to spread Christmas cheer. He may be in a cookie. Unfortunately, the law of trespass does not bother to ask what reason the trespasser entered. The law only cares to know whether the trespasser intended to come onto the property. In other words, as long as Santa meant to slide down, Scrooge's chimney, it doesn't matter whether he knew he was trespassing or even intended to trespass. All that matters is that he entered someone else's property. Yeah, the trespass intent thing is pretty intense. The one counter-argument that Santa could make is that he had consent. That is, it's customary and traditional among Christian nations to permit a single portly intruder, vertical descent into slumbering residents once a year near the Winter Solstice. Scrooge also has a claim for assault against Tiny Tim. To establish a prima facie case for assault, Scrooge must show that Tiny Tim voluntarily acted with intent to cause immediate apprehension of harmful or offensive touching. Sounds kind of familiar, huh? Well, the difference between assault and battery is that in a battery, a contact or touching actually happens, but with an assault, the person is aware in that moment that contact or a touching is about to happen, but it doesn't. That's what's meant by the immediate apprehension of harmful or offensive touching. In other words, with the assault, there is no contact, and with battery, there is a contact. Other than that difference, battery and assault share the same elements. Scrooge will argue that under the circumstances, he thought that at any moment, Tiny Tim would strike him, hence the element immediate apprehension. However, Tiny Tim has stronger arguments because Tiny Tim suffers from epilepsy. He was not voluntarily acting during his seizure. Also, since he was not in control of his brain or mind at the time, he could not have formed the requisite intent. In other words, during a seizure, Tiny Tim is not aware or in control enough to have an intent. He may be tiny, but we can't leave him out either. Tiny Tim has a legal claim. It's against Scrooge for battery. A prima facie case for battery requires Scrooge to have voluntarily acted with the intent to cause harmful or offensive contact. Scrooge voluntarily acted since he purposefully directed his foot in a kicking motion toward Tiny Tim's crutches.
[12:59]But there's a problem. Scrooge didn't intend to cause harmful or offensive contact to Tiny Tim. He can argue that he intended and did contact Tim's crutch. So Scrooge is like, "Hey, I didn't come in contact with Tim, I came in contact with his crutch, so there's no contact." Scrooge is right, but the tort law treats this as an exception. You see, whether it's a dog's leash, a person sitting in a car, or a man on a cane, as long as someone is connected to the leash or inside the car or holding the cane, then the contact with the connected object is treated as contact with the person. As promised, that's battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattel, and conversion. So, in case you forgot, I'm super cool, from the Law Academy. If you like the idea of someone cool like me explaining the law to you in a way that's clear, concise, and fun, instead of the medieval torture tools that dominate the law school landscape and confuse the heck out of normal folks like me, then check out more Law Academy videos at this website. You know you got this whole law school thing, right? This isn't bad.
