1) Negligence- one of the biggest class of torts.

2) Products and strict liability are another classe

What does prima facie mean?

What are prima facie elements (generally)?

Priman facie means on its face

Prima facie elements are those that have to be proved from the plaintiff's standpoint in order to have their claim decided in their favor in court.

1) an act 

2) intent

3) causation

You must prove that the actor intended to act. There are three different kinds:

1) Specific Intent

2) General Intent

3) Transferred Intent

Must prove that the actor intended the consequences of the conduct in acting to achieve them.

(i.e. I intended to hit you over the head and did so).

The acotr intends the actions of the conduct that he knows with relative certainty of its consequences.

Essentially, you must intend to do something and that you should have substantial certainty that it would cause consequences.

The plaintiff must show only that the defendant intended to act and that  the defendant should have known the consequences.

This occurs when person X itends to commit a tort against Y but accidentally inflects the same tort on person Z and a different tort on Y.

Therefore the liability flows from one person to another.

Transferred intent is alllow in assault, tresspass to property/ chattal.

Casausations

What does this mean with regard to how you can cause damage?

Results giving rise to liability must have been legally caused by the defendants act or soemthing set in motion by the defendants; this must be a substantial factor.

So you can cause damage with even just touching.

1) The act by the defendant is the harmful or offensive contract to the palintiff's person.

2)Intent on the part of the defendant to bring about the harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff's person.

3)Causation: The defendant is liable for both direct and indirect contact that your action sets in motion.

What is the plaintiff's person?

What is an example of this?

The plaintiff's person is anything to connected to the plaintiff.

So if you grab a purse that I am holding, it is harming and offending my person even if you are not touching my actual physical body.

The intent to harm is not required; just the itnent to act and that action yields the consequences.

Basically if you set something in motion that causes the harm.

Apprehension of the contact is not necessary. You can be unconscious or not know that it's coming.

I.e. someone sneaking up behind you or you are asleep.

1) An act by the defendant that creates a reaonsable apprehension in the plaintiff of immediate harmful or offesnive contact to the plaintiff's person.

2) There must be an intnetion on the defendants part and then intention must be immediate (i.e. close/right away).

3) Casaution: The plaintiffs apprehension must be legally caused by the defendant's act or something set in motion by the defendant.

What is apprehension?

Is it the same thing as fear? intimidation?

What if you are defending yourself?

Apprehension is the expectation that of immediate contact from someone else. It must be reasonable.

You may apprehend immeditae contact even  if ou are defending yourself.

In determing assault, will words alone suffice as an act?

What else on the part of defendant is required?

What can sufficce as an act?

Knowledge of the acti is required and the act must be overtly physical. Not just words will generally suffice.

Just movement towards the plaintiff can suffice.

1) an act or omission to act on the defendant's part that confines or restrains the plaintiff to a bounded area.

2) Must show that there is a reasonable intent on the part of the defendant to confine or bind the plaintiff.

3) Causation: the plaintiff's confinement must be legally caused by the defendant's act or something that the defendant set in motion.

Can you use physical forces to confine someone?

Does someone have to kept somewhere or can they be sent elsewhere? 

Can you have transferred intent in involuntary confinement?

What would an example of this be?

Yes, for example when a plaintif or plaintiff's immediate family member is restrained

i.e. if a burglar restrains a child to get his mother's money, this then constitutes false imprisonment. This can therefore be transferred intent.

Do you have to provide an immediate means of escape (with regards to flase imprisonment)?

What are two examples?

Failure to provide an immediate means of escape can constitute means of escape (you must affirmatively offer the means of escape).

So if you are in an office and told to wait there until the investigation is done and not told to leave, this can be false imprisonment.

Being kept on a boat against your will without providing reasonable means of escape (even though you are told you may swim back and therefore are not technically held captive)

A shopkeeper can detain a shoplifter for reasonably believing  the person stole but it must be done in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time.

The shopowner/clerk must have reason to believe the shoplifter took and hid something.