Intentional Torts & Privileges

Question 1

Garratt v. Dailey (Wash. 1955) — test for intent?

Accepted Answer

Intent exists if the defendant acted with purpose or knew with substantial certainty that contact would result (the boy who moved the chair). (Source: Garratt v. Dailey, 46 Wash. 2d 197 (1955))

Question 2

Katko v. Briney (Iowa 1971) — held?

Accepted Answer

A property owner may not use force likely to cause death or serious injury (a spring gun) to protect property alone. (Source: Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971))

Question 3

Ploof v. Putnam (Vt. 1908) — held?

Accepted Answer

Private necessity justified mooring to the defendant's dock in a storm; the dock owner was liable for unmooring the boat. (Source: Ploof v. Putnam, 81 Vt. 471 (1908))

Question 4

Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. (Minn. 1910) — held?

Accepted Answer

Private necessity is an incomplete privilege: the shipowner could stay moored in the storm but had to pay for the damage caused to the dock. (Source: Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. Co., 109 Minn. 456 (1910))

Question 5

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) — held?

Accepted Answer

Public figures cannot recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress from a publication without showing a false statement of fact made with actual malice. (Source: Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988))

1.Garratt v. Dailey (Wash. 1955) — test for intent?

2.Katko v. Briney (Iowa 1971) — held?

3.Ploof v. Putnam (Vt. 1908) — held?

4.Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. (Minn. 1910) — held?

5.Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) — held?