Podcasts about intentional torts

It's back-to-school time for the kids and for paramedics and EMTs, too!  Nick is planning to renew his certification.  But we know there will be a set of medical-legal questions on the National Registry exam, and he will be sure he's prepared.  In this series, Nick and Samantha dive deeper into the medical-legal concepts commonly tested on the National Registry and help our listeners prepare to take on these questions.  Please like and subscribe! You can get this and other podcasts anywhere you get your podcasts or from the FlightBridgeED website at https://flightbridgeed.com/standard-of-care/Key Takeaways• Understand the Difference: Criminal actions are prosecuted by the state and aim to punish and deter, while torts are civil cases seeking compensation for wrongs.• Evidentiary Standards Matter: The burden of proof is much higher in criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt) compared to civil cases (preponderance of the evidence).• Negligence Requires Four Elements: To prove negligence, you must demonstrate duty, breach, causation, and damages. All four must be present for a successful claim.• Know Your Legal Responsibilities: As an EMS provider, it's crucial to act with due regard for public safety, especially in high-stakes situations like driving with lights and sirens.• Be Prepared for Legal Complexity: Cases can involve both criminal and civil aspects, and understanding how these interact is vital for protecting yourself and your practice.

Summary of Chapter 2: Intentional Torts. Chapter 2 of the Tort Law Hornbook delves into the category of intentional torts, which involve deliberate actions that cause harm to others. The key intentional torts discussed include battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion. Battery: Defined as intentional and harmful or offensive physical contact with another person without consent. Key elements include intent, contact, and the harmful or offensive nature of the contact. Defenses include consent, self-defense, and defense of others. Assault: Involves creating a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact in another person. Key elements are intent, reasonable apprehension, and imminence. Defenses include consent, self-defense, and defense of others. False Imprisonment: Occurs when a person intentionally confines another within fixed boundaries without lawful justification and without consent. Key elements include intent, confinement, lack of consent, and the plaintiff's awareness or harm. Defenses include lawful authority, consent, and necessity. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): Involves extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress. Key elements include extreme and outrageous conduct, intent or recklessness, causation, and severe emotional distress. Defenses include lack of intent or recklessness, conduct not deemed extreme and outrageous, and the plaintiff not experiencing severe emotional distress. Trespass to Land: Occurs when a person intentionally enters or remains on another's property without permission or lawful justification. Key elements include intent, entry, and lack of consent. Defenses include consent, necessity, and privilege. Trespass to Chattels: Involves intentional interference with another's personal property, resulting in harm or loss of use. Key elements include intent, interference, and harm or deprivation. Defenses include consent, necessity, and privilege. Conversion: Defined as the intentional exercise of control over another's personal property that seriously interferes with the owner's rights. Key elements include intent, dominion or control, and serious interference. Defenses include consent, lawful authority, and necessity. These intentional torts address various forms of wrongful conduct, providing legal frameworks to protect individuals' rights and property from intentional harm. The chapter also highlights relevant defenses, offering a balanced approach to adjudicating claims and recognizing justified actions. In this chapter, we've explored the core concepts of intentional torts, which involve deliberate actions that cause harm or interfere with the rights of others. These torts include battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion. Each tort has specific elements that must be proven for a successful claim, and various defenses may be raised to counter these claims. Understanding these foundational aspects of intentional torts is essential for navigating the complexities of tort law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 2: Intentional Torts. Chapter 2 of the Tort Law Hornbook delves into the category of intentional torts, which involve deliberate actions that cause harm to others. The key intentional torts discussed include battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion. Battery: Defined as intentional and harmful or offensive physical contact with another person without consent. Key elements include intent, contact, and the harmful or offensive nature of the contact. Defenses include consent, self-defense, and defense of others. Assault: Involves creating a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact in another person. Key elements are intent, reasonable apprehension, and imminence. Defenses include consent, self-defense, and defense of others. False Imprisonment: Occurs when a person intentionally confines another within fixed boundaries without lawful justification and without consent. Key elements include intent, confinement, lack of consent, and the plaintiff's awareness or harm. Defenses include lawful authority, consent, and necessity. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): Involves extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress. Key elements include extreme and outrageous conduct, intent or recklessness, causation, and severe emotional distress. Defenses include lack of intent or recklessness, conduct not deemed extreme and outrageous, and the plaintiff not experiencing severe emotional distress. Trespass to Land: Occurs when a person intentionally enters or remains on another's property without permission or lawful justification. Key elements include intent, entry, and lack of consent. Defenses include consent, necessity, and privilege. Trespass to Chattels: Involves intentional interference with another's personal property, resulting in harm or loss of use. Key elements include intent, interference, and harm or deprivation. Defenses include consent, necessity, and privilege. Conversion: Defined as the intentional exercise of control over another's personal property that seriously interferes with the owner's rights. Key elements include intent, dominion or control, and serious interference. Defenses include consent, lawful authority, and necessity. These intentional torts address various forms of wrongful conduct, providing legal frameworks to protect individuals' rights and property from intentional harm. The chapter also highlights relevant defenses, offering a balanced approach to adjudicating claims and recognizing justified actions. In this chapter, we've explored the core concepts of intentional torts, which involve deliberate actions that cause harm or interfere with the rights of others. These torts include battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion. Each tort has specific elements that must be proven for a successful claim, and various defenses may be raised to counter these claims. Understanding these foundational aspects of intentional torts is essential for navigating the complexities of tort law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! Today, in an episode from our "Listen and Learn" series, we're discussing property intentional torts and their specific defenses. In this episode we discuss: A brief review of intentional torts When is a defendant liable for trespass to land? The differences between trespass to chattels and conversion The necessity defense for property intentional torts The case Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. Two hypos from previous California bar exams involving property intentional torts Resources: "Listen and Learn" series (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/law-school-toolbox-podcast-substantive-law-topics/#listen-learn) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2016 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/February2016CBX_QuestionsSelectedAnswers_R.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2022 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/February-2022-CBX-Essay-Qs-and-Selected-Answers.pdf) Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. (https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-epstein/intentionally-inflicted-harm-the-prima-facie-case-and-defenses/vincent-v-lake-erie-transportation-co-2/) First-Hand Guide to 1L Courses – Property (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/first-hand-guide-to-1l-courses-property/) Download the Transcript  (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-444-listen-and-learn-property-based-intentional-torts/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an episode! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Join host Nick on today's episode of LawIn4. As a law student himself, he and his team embark on an exploration of the intentional tort of private nuisance, a critical concept that every law student must understand. The Law In 4 Podcast is your go-to podcast for law school study help in 4 minutes or less. If you'd like to see a topic covered contact us via our website for your suggestions. For more information on the Australian Law student, visit our website at ⁠⁠theauslawstudent.com⁠⁠ Disclaimer: The Lawin4 is produced by law students, for law students. It is not, nor is it intended to constitute legal advice. If you require legal assistance, you should contact your local law society, who can direct you appropriately.

Join host Nick on today's episode of LawIn4. As a law student himself, he and his team embark on an exploration of the intentional tort of false imprisonment, a critical concept that every law student must understand. The Law In 4 Podcast is your go-to podcast for law school study help in 4 minutes or less. If you'd like to see a topic covered contact us via our website for your suggestions. For more information on the Australian Law student, visit our website at ⁠⁠theauslawstudent.com⁠⁠ Disclaimer: The Lawin4 is produced by law students, for law students. It is not, nor is it intended to constitute legal advice. If you require legal assistance, you should contact your local law society, who can direct you appropriately.

Join host Nick on today's episode of LawIn4. As a law student himself, he and his team embark on an exploration of the intentional tort of assault, a critical concept that every law student must understand. The Law In 4 Podcast is your go-to podcast for law school study help in 4 minutes or less. If you'd like to see a topic covered contact us via our website for your suggestions. For more information on the Australian Law student, visit our website at ⁠⁠theauslawstudent.com⁠⁠ Disclaimer: The Lawin4 is produced by law students, for law students. It is not, nor is it intended to constitute legal advice. If you require legal assistance, you should contact your local law society, who can direct you appropriately.

Join host Nick on today's episode of LawIn4. As a law student himself, he and his team embark on an exploration of the intentional tort of battery, a critical concept that every law student must understand. The Law In 4 Podcast is your go-to podcast for law school study help in 4 minutes or less. If you'd like to see a topic covered contact us via our website for your suggestions. For more information on the Australian Law student, visit our website at ⁠theauslawstudent.com⁠ Disclaimer: The Lawin4 is produced by law students, for law students. It is not, nor is it intended to constitute legal advice. If you require legal assistance, you should contact your local law society, who can direct you appropriately.

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today, in an episode from our "Listen and Learn" series, we're discussing property intentional torts and their specific defenses.  In this episode, we discuss: A brief review of intentional torts When is a defendant liable for trespass to land? The differences between trespass to chattels and conversion  The necessity defense for property intentional torts The case Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. Two hypos from previous California bar exams involving property intentional torts  Resources: "Listen and Learn" series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2016 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/February2016CBX_QuestionsSelectedAnswers_R.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2022 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/February-2022-CBX-Essay-Qs-and-Selected-Answers.pdf) Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. (https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-epstein/intentionally-inflicted-harm-the-prima-facie-case-and-defenses/vincent-v-lake-erie-transportation-co-2/) Podcast Episode 39: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Real Property (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-39-tackling-a-california-bar-exam-essay-real-property/) Podcast Episode 65: Tackling an MEE Real Property Essay Question (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-65-tackling-an-mee-real-property-essay-question/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-252-listen-and-learn-property-based-intentional-torts/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Exploring Intentional Torts. Intentional torts are characterized by the defendant's deliberate actions that lead to harm or injury to the plaintiff. Unlike negligence, where the focus is on the defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care, intentional torts require proof of intent. Let's delve into some key intentional torts: 1. Assault. Assault occurs when one person intentionally puts another in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. The key is the victim's reasonable fear. Example: If someone raises a fist and threatens to punch another person, putting them in fear of imminent harm, it constitutes assault. 2. Battery. Battery involves the intentional and harmful or offensive touching of another person without their consent. It's not the harm caused but the intentional act of touching that defines battery. Example: If someone intentionally punches another person, causing physical harm, it constitutes battery. 3. False Imprisonment. False imprisonment occurs when one person intentionally restricts another's freedom of movement within a bounded area without their consent. The victim must be aware of the confinement or harmed by it. Example: If a store employee wrongfully detains a shopper, suspecting them of theft without proper evidence, it constitutes false imprisonment. 4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. This tort involves intentional conduct that is extreme and outrageous, causing severe emotional distress to another person. Example: If someone engages in severe bullying or harassment, intentionally causing emotional harm, it may constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress. 5. Defamation. Defamation is the intentional publication of a false statement that harms the reputation of another person. It includes both written (libel) and spoken (slander) forms. Example: If someone spreads false rumors about another person, damaging their reputation, it constitutes defamation. 6. Invasion of Privacy. Invasion of privacy comprises several intentional torts, such as intrusion into seclusion, publication of private facts, false light, and appropriation of likeness. Example: If someone secretly records another person in their private space without consent, it constitutes invasion of privacy. 7. Trespass to Land. Trespass to land occurs when a person intentionally enters the land of another without permission. It covers physical entry or causing an object to enter the land. Example: If someone enters another person's property without permission, it constitutes trespass to land. 8. Trespass to Chattels and Conversion. These torts involve intentional interference with another person's personal property. Trespass to chattels is a lesser interference, while conversion is a substantial interference or wrongful possession. Example: If someone intentionally damages another person's car (trespass to chattels) or steals it (conversion), it constitutes these intentional torts. Key Elements of Intentional Torts. To succeed in an intentional tort claim, certain elements must be established: Intent: The defendant must have the intent to commit the act that resulted in harm. Intent can be specific, intending the actual consequences, or general, intending the act but not necessarily the harm. Causation: The defendant's intentional act must be the actual cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff. Harm: The plaintiff must have suffered harm or damages as a result of the defendant's intentional act. Defenses to Intentional Torts. Defendants in intentional tort cases have several defenses at their disposal: Consent: If the plaintiff consented to the defendant's actions, knowing the risks involved, it can serve as a complete defense. Example: In a case where participants in a contact sport agree to the physical nature of the game, the defense of consent might apply. Self-Defense: Individuals have the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves from an imminent threat. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Defining Intentional Torts. Intentional torts are civil wrongs where the defendant intentionally commits an act that results in harm to the plaintiff. Unlike negligence, where the focus is on the defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care, intentional torts involve the defendant's deliberate actions. Types of Intentional Torts. Intentional torts cover a broad spectrum of wrongful acts. Let's explore some common types: Assault: Assault occurs when one person intentionally puts another in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. The key is the victim's reasonable fear. Battery: Battery involves the intentional and harmful or offensive touching of another person without their consent. It's not the harm caused but the intentional act of touching that defines battery. False Imprisonment: False imprisonment occurs when one person intentionally restricts another's freedom of movement within a bounded area without their consent. The victim must be aware of the confinement or harmed by it. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: This tort involves intentional conduct that is extreme and outrageous, causing severe emotional distress to another person. Defamation: Defamation is the intentional publication of a false statement that harms the reputation of another person. It includes both written (libel) and spoken (slander) forms. Invasion of Privacy: Invasion of privacy comprises several intentional torts, such as intrusion into seclusion, publication of private facts, false light, and appropriation of likeness. Trespass to Land: Trespass to land occurs when a person intentionally enters the land of another without permission. It covers physical entry or causing an object to enter the land. Trespass to Chattels and Conversion: These torts involve intentional interference with another person's personal property. Trespass to chattels is a lesser interference, while conversion is a substantial interference or wrongful possession. Elements of Intentional Torts. To succeed in an intentional tort claim, certain elements must be established, including: Intent: The defendant must have the intent to commit the act that resulted in harm. Intent can be specific, intending the actual consequences, or general, intending the act but not necessarily the harm. Causation: The defendant's intentional act must be the actual cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff. Harm: The plaintiff must have suffered harm or damages as a result of the defendant's intentional act. Defenses to Intentional Torts. Defendants in intentional tort cases have several defenses at their disposal: Consent: If the plaintiff consented to the defendant's actions, knowing the risks involved, it can serve as a complete defense. Self-Defense: Individuals have the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves from an imminent threat. Defense of Others: Similar to self-defense, a person may use reasonable force to protect another person who is in imminent danger. Defense of Property: Individuals have the right to use reasonable force to protect their property from being invaded or stolen. Privilege: Certain statements made in specific contexts, such as in courtrooms or legislative proceedings, are protected by privilege and are not subject to defamation claims. Case Example: Assault and Battery. Imagine a scenario where Person A threatens to punch Person B and then proceeds to strike them, causing physical harm. In this case: Assault: The threat by Person A to punch Person B puts Person B in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact. This constitutes assault. Battery: The intentional act of Person A striking Person B, causing physical harm, constitutes battery. The key is the intentional act of touching, regardless of the harm caused. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Intentional torts are a fascinating and critical area of Tort Law. In this episode, we'll explore what intentional torts are, delve into various types of intentional torts, understand the essential elements required to prove an intentional tort claim, and explore defenses that defendants can use in such cases. Whether you're a law student, legal practitioner, or simply interested in the intricacies of the law, we're here to provide you with a comprehensive understanding of intentional torts. Understanding Intentional Torts. Intentional torts are a category of civil wrongs where the defendant intentionally engages in conduct that results in harm or injury to the plaintiff. Unlike negligence cases, where the focus is on the defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care, intentional torts center on the defendant's deliberate actions. Types of Intentional Torts. Let's begin by exploring some common types of intentional torts: Assault: Assault occurs when one person intentionally puts another in reasonable fear of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Importantly, it's the fear of harm that constitutes assault, not the actual physical contact itself. For example, if someone raises their fist in a threatening manner towards another person, creating a reasonable fear of being punched, that could be considered assault. Battery: Battery is the intentional and harmful or offensive physical contact with another person without their consent. Unlike assault, battery requires actual physical contact. If someone punches another person without their consent, that would be a battery. False Imprisonment: False imprisonment occurs when someone intentionally restrains another person's freedom of movement without their consent and without legal justification. This can include actions like locking someone in a room against their will. Trespass to Land: Trespass to land is committed when someone intentionally enters another person's property without permission. This can include physical entry onto the property or causing an object to enter the property's airspace. Trespass to Chattels (Personal Property): This involves intentionally interfering with another person's lawful possession of personal property, causing harm or deprivation. For instance, if someone intentionally damages another person's car without permission, it could be a trespass to chattels. Conversion: Conversion is a more serious form of trespass to chattels. It occurs when someone intentionally interferes with another person's personal property to such an extent that it's akin to taking ownership of that property. If someone not only damages another person's car but also sells it without permission, it could be considered conversion. Elements of Intentional Tort Claims. To establish a successful intentional tort claim, certain elements must be proven: Intent: The defendant must have intentionally engaged in the conduct that caused the harm. Intent means that the defendant either desired the consequences of their actions or was substantially certain that those consequences would occur. Harm or Injury: There must be actual harm or injury suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's intentional actions. This harm can be physical, emotional, or financial, depending on the type of intentional tort. Causation: The plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's intentional actions were the direct cause of the harm suffered. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

In this episode, we'll shift our focus to intentional torts—an intriguing area that examines the consequences of deliberate Imagine a situation where someone intentionally punches another person, causing physical harm. Intentional torts come into play when a person's deliberate actions lead to harm or injury to another individual. One of the most well-known intentional tort cases is "Battery." In this case, a defendant had intentionally touched the plaintiff in an offensive and harmful manner, without their consent. The court had to determine if the defendant's actions constituted a battery. Let's engage in another interactive exercise to reinforce your understanding. Consider a scenario where a person spreads false and damaging rumors about a coworker, causing harm to their reputation. Identify the intentional tort involved and discuss its elements. Here is the Model Answer: The intentional tort involved in this scenario is "Defamation." Defamation occurs when a false statement is communicated to a third party, damaging a person's reputation. The elements of defamation typically include a false statement, publication to a third party, harm to the reputation, and negligence or fault on the part of the speaker. Intentional torts highlight the significance of accountability for deliberate harmful actions, even if they don't involve physical violence. Consider a scenario where a person intentionally interferes with a business contract between two parties, causing financial harm. The concept of intentional interference with contractual relations applies when a person intentionally disrupts contractual relationships for their own gain. "Trespass to Land" is another intentional tort that exemplifies the concept. In a notable case, a person entered another's property without permission, leading to a lawsuit over the violation of property rights. Time for an exercise! Suppose a photographer uses someone's likeness without their consent to advertise a product, leading to financial losses for the individual. Identify the intentional tort involved and discuss its elements. Here is the Model Answer: The intentional tort involved in this scenario is "Right of Publicity." Right of publicity tort occurs when a person's name, image, or likeness is used for commercial purposes without their consent, causing financial harm. The elements generally include the unauthorized use, a commercial purpose, harm suffered, and lack of consent. As we explore intentional torts, you'll gain insights into the various ways intentional actions can lead to legal consequences. Imagine a situation where a person intentionally locks someone in a room against their will. The concept of false imprisonment comes into play when a person intentionally restricts another person's freedom of movement without lawful justification. The case of "False Imprisonment" involving a store's security personnel detaining a shopper on suspicion of theft without proper evidence highlights the legal considerations surrounding this intentional tort. For your final exercise, consider a scenario where someone intentionally invades another person's privacy by secretly recording their private conversations. Identify the intentional tort involved and discuss its elements. Here is the Model Answer: The intentional tort involved in this scenario is "Invasion of Privacy." Invasion of privacy occurs when a person intrudes upon another person's private affairs, violating their reasonable expectation of privacy. The elements typically encompass the intrusion, the private nature of the information, a reasonable expectation of privacy, and harm suffered. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor (alleged wrongdoer). The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken. Background. As a matter of public policy, damages available for intentional torts tend to be broader and more generous than for negligent torts. To preserve individual well-being and overall social welfare, society generally wishes to deter its members from intentionally attacking each other. For example, in the United States, it is easier to get punitive damages (damages above and beyond compensatory damages) if one can prove that the tort was intentional. Similarly, in most Australian jurisdictions, intentional torts are not included in civil liability legislation, thus excluding the threshold of injury and damages payouts from various legislated limitations and caps. But it is harder to prove intentional torts because as with many felony crimes, one must prove subjective elements involving the content of the defendant's mind, and defendants do not always express their harmful intent out loud or in writing. Intentional torts are most directly contrasted with negligent torts. The key difference between the two categories of tort is that the plaintiff must prove the additional element that the defendant acted with the specific intent to perform (for example, acted with a mental state of intentionally performing) the act that was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries (so-called malice), as opposed to simply violating a general duty of care as plaintiffs must prove in suits for negligence. "The concept of 'intention' in the intentional torts does not require that defendants know that their acts will result in harm to the plaintiffs. Defendants must know only that their acts will result in certain consequences." Under the doctrine of the transferred intent, the plaintiff may instead prove that the defendant intended to commit any intentional tort against any person rather than the specific injury that actually occurred. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

If you would like to discuss legal topics in person, join Law Schoolers Pro at https://lawschoolers.com/join/Disclaimers:1. Nearly all of our episodes are unedited. We want to give you raw footage which means that there will be bumps, dings, and some pops.2. The information contained in these episodes are for educational purposes only, not to be used as legal advice.3. If the information is used as legal advice, Law Schoolers is not liable for any legal outcomes.

Remember to check your materials and that some info is only applicable to Florida. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/fgoldbuster/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/fgoldbuster/support

Battery - Assault - IIED & False Imprisonment (p1) - some is Florida law specific - always check your own materials bc I could be totally wrong --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/fgoldbuster/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/fgoldbuster/support

Tune in to listen to a brief review focused on intentional torts. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Brynn Marie is “co- player” of mine, by “co- player, I mean “co- worker” but we don't work, we play and make our job fun! Just like our job, we have a lot of fun in this conversation!Brynn is such a free spirited soul. She has her own podcast focusing on mindset, wellness and fitness and is a yoga + fitness instructor. In this episode we talk about about:Trusting the journey to your life goals.The fun is in the journey.Finding different ways to get in touch with yourself.Not having control of the outcome but knowing how to control the solution. FOLLOW BRYNN:INSTAGRAMFACEBOOKWEBSITE If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating  and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser and Castbox. Let's Connect:The Get Up GirlInstagramFacebookMonthly online fitness academy

Transferred intent (or transferred mens rea, or transferred malice, in English law) is a legal doctrine that holds that, when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead, the perpetrator is still held responsible. To be held legally responsible, a court typically must demonstrate that the perpetrator had criminal intent, that is, that they knew or should have known that another would be harmed by their actions and wanted this harm to occur. For example, if a murderer intends to kill John, but accidentally kills George instead, the intent is transferred from John to George, and the killer is held to have had criminal intent. Transferred intent also applies to tort law. In tort law, there are generally five areas in which transferred intent is applicable: battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels. Generally, any intent to cause any one of these five torts which results in the completion of any of the five tortious acts will be considered an intentional act, even if the actual target of the tort is one other than the intended target of the original tort. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED; sometimes called the tort of outrage) is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an "extreme and outrageous" way. Some courts and commentators have substituted mental for emotional, but the tort is the same. Rationale for classification. IIED was created in tort law to address a problem that would arise when applying the common law form of assault. The common law tort of assault did not allow for liability when a threat of battery was not imminent. A common case would be a future threat of harm that would not constitute common law assault but would nevertheless cause emotional harm to the recipient. IIED was created to guard against this kind of emotional abuse, thereby allowing a victim of emotional distress to receive compensation in situations where he or she would otherwise be barred from compensation under the common law form. According to the first doctrine articulated by common law courts, a plaintiff could not recover for physical injury from fright alone absent a physical impact from an external source ("shock without impact"), even if the fright was proven to have resulted from a defendant's negligence, with the case on point referring to the negligent operation of a railroad. Even with intentional conduct, absent material damage, claims for emotional harm were similarly barred. "Mental pain or anxiety, the law cannot value, and does not pretend to redress, when the unlawful act causes that alone. Though where a material damage occurs, and is connected with it, it is impossible a jury, in estimating it, should altogether overlook the feelings of the party interested." Courts had been reluctant to accept a tort for emotional harm for fear of opening a "wide door" to frivolous claims. A change first occurred in the Irish courts which repudiated the English railroad decision and recognized liability for "nervous shock" in the Byrne (1884) and Bell (1890) cases In England, the idea that physical/mental shock without impact from an external source should be a bar to recovery was first questioned at the Queen's Bench in Pugh v London etcetera, Railroad Co. In the following year, the Queen's Bench formally recognized the tort, for the first time, in the case of Wilkinson v Downton, although it was referred to as "intentional infliction of mental shock". Wilkinson has been subsequently approved by both the Court of Appeal (Janvier v Sweeney) and House of Lords (Wainwright v Home Office). Citing Pugh and the Irish courts as precedent, the Wilkinson court noted the willful nature of the act as a direct cause of the harm. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

False imprisonment or unlawful imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person's movement within any area without legal authority, justification, or the restrained person's permission. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. For detention by the police, proof of false imprisonment provides a basis to obtain a writ of habeas corpus. Under common law, false imprisonment is both a crime and a tort. Imprisonment. Within the context of false imprisonment, an imprisonment occurs when a person is restrained from moving from a location or bounded area, as a result of a wrongful intentional act, such as the use of force, threat, coercion, or abuse of authority. Detention that is not false imprisonment. Even when a person is involuntarily detained, not all acts of detention amount to false imprisonment. The law may privilege a person to detain somebody else against their will. A legally authorized detention does not constitute false imprisonment. For example, if a parent or legal guardian of a child denies the child's request to leave their house, and prevents them from doing so, this would not ordinarily constitute false imprisonment. False imprisonment requires an intentional act, and an accidental detention will not support a claim of false imprisonment. Complete restraint. 'Imprisonment is, as I apprehend, a total restraint of the liberty of the person, for however, short a time, and not a partial obstruction of his will, whatever inconvenience it may bring on him.' There must be complete restraint, therefore, if there are alternative routes that can be taken this is not false imprisonment. Such as in Bird v Jones where the claimant wanted to walk over Hammersmith bridge but the defendant had cordoned off the public footpath, however, this did not constitute false imprisonment because, through using a longer route, the claimant could have still reached their destination. Therefore, if there is a means of escape, this is not false imprisonment. There must be no reasonable means of escape and you may be compensated for any damages caused in order for you to escape reasonably. However, if you have not taken a reasonable route of escape/reasonable action you will not be awarded damages. The claimant does not need to be aware they are being imprisoned. It is still false imprisonment even where the claimant does not know at the time. So secretly locking someone in a room is false imprisonment. It may also be false imprisonment where a person is rendered unconscious, for example, by being punched (also a battery), or when their drink is spiked by drugs (also willful harm or negligence), because their freedom of movement is thereby restricted. For example, in the case of Meering v Grahame-White Aviation the claimant was told to stay in an office because property was going missing and if they tried to leave the office they would have been stopped. This was held to be a false imprisonment even though the claimant did not know they were being imprisoned. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

At common law, battery is a tort falling under the umbrella term 'Trespass to the person'. Entailing unlawful contact which is directed and intentional, or reckless (or, in Australia, negligently) and voluntarily bringing about a harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them, such as a bag or purse, without legal consent. Unlike assault, in which the fear of imminent contact may support a civil claim, battery involves an actual contact. The contact can be by one person (the tortfeasor) of another (the victim), with or without a weapon, or the contact may be by an object brought about by the tortfeasor. For example, intentionally bringing a car into contact with another person, or the intentional striking of a person with a thrown rock, is a battery. Unlike criminal law, which recognizes degrees of various crimes involving physical contact, there is but a single tort of battery. Lightly flicking a person's ear is battery, as is severely beating someone with a tire iron. Neither is there a separate tort for a battery of a sexual nature. However, a jury hearing a battery case is free to assess higher damages for a battery in which the contact was particularly offensive or harmful. Since it is practically impossible to avoid physical contact with others during everyday activities, everyone is presumed to consent to a certain amount of physical contact with others, such as when one person unavoidably brushes or bumps against another in a crowded lift, passage, or stairway. However, physical contact may not be deemed consented to if the acts that cause harm are prohibited acts. Contact required. Battery is a form of trespass to the person and as such no actual damage (for example, injury) needs to be proved. Only proof of contact (with the appropriate level of intention or negligence) needs to be made. An attempt to commit a battery, but without making actual contact, may constitute a tort of assault. The tort of battery developed out of a general judicial respect of an individual's autonomy and right not to be interfered with. Battery need not require body-to-body contact. Touching an object "intimately connected", to a person (such as an object he or she is holding) can also be a battery. Furthermore, a contract may constitute a battery even if there is a delay between the defendant's act and the contact to the plaintiff's injury. For example, where a person who digs a pit with the intent that another will fall into it later, or where a person who mixes something offensive in food that he knows another will eat, has committed a battery against that other when the other does in fact fall into the pit or eats the offensive matter. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

In Episode 48 of Business Law 101, I give an overview of Intentional Torts. I am an attorney and speaker as well as the founder and CEO of Claremont Management Group, a consulting firm in Houston, Texas. I'm also a tenured professor and the Director of Graduate Programs at the University of St. Thomas. I have written and published The Decline of America: 100 Years of Leadership Failures, a thought-provoking, non-partisan book that reviews the last 100 years of American Presidents (from Wilson through Obama), offering not just criticism, but common-sense solutions to help fix America before it's too late. I also host the podcast Saving America, where I explore the intersection between business and politics. Remember to subscribe to and rate Saving America and Business Law 101 in your favorite podcast app!

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! Today, we're talking about defamation -- a topic you might see on a Torts essay along with other intentional torts. In this episode we discuss: The five elements of defamation When is a statement of opinion actionable? The difference between defamation claims brought by private figures and public figures The "slander per se" rule for damages Analyzing three fact patterns involving defamation claims What are the common defenses to defamation? Resources: “Listen and Learn” series (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/law-school-toolbox-podcast-substantive-law-topics/#listen-learn) Tutoring for Law School Success (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/tutoring-for-law-school-success/) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2009 (https://juraxbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/February-2009-CBX.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2020 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/February-2020-Essay-Selected-Answers.pdf) Podcast Episode 288: Listen and Learn – Assault and Battery (Torts) (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-288-listen-and-learn-assault-and-battery-torts/) First-Hand Guide to 1L Courses – Torts (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/first-hand-guide-to-1l-courses-torts/) Download the Transcript  (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-306-listen-and-learn-intentional-torts-defamation/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an episode! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

A Video Explaining Defenses to Various Intentional Torts https://zalma.com/blog Self-Defense and Defense of a Third Party The California Civil Code states: Any necessary force may be used to protect from wrongful injury the person or property of oneself, or of a wife, husband, child, parent, or other relative, or member of one's family, or of a ward, servant, master or guest. (California Civil Code § 50) The person must reasonably believe that danger exists, and must use only such force as is reasonably necessary. Use of Deadly Force Deadly force or force likely to cause bodily harm is not justified merely in defense of property. Spring guns or other deadly mechanical devices are to be used only if deadly force is justifiable. Deadly force may be used against a felonious trespasser. Defenses to Defamation Defenses to charges of defamation include, but are not limited to truth. This is a complete defense. Reasonable, but erroneous belief in the truth of the accusation is no defense. The erroneous belief merely changes the tort from intentional to negligent defamation. Defenses to False Imprisonment Reasonable detention without arrest is a judicial privilege codified by California Penal Code § 490.5(f)(1). For example, a storekeeper who believes a theft has been committed may detain the suspected person for a reasonable time. Defenses to Malicious Prosecution A termination of a case consistent with guilt or with civil liability is not a basis for the tort of malicious prosecution. The plaintiff must show that the original action was brought without a lack of probable cause to make the criminal charge or to file the civil suit. If the defendant honestly and reasonably believed in the truth of the charge, the element requiring a favorable termination of the original case fails. The defense must be independently proved. It cannot be inferred from proof of malice. Advice of counsel is a defense establishing probable cause. © 2021 – Barry Zalma --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma/support

In this episode of LegalWise with Ted Echols, Ted answers your questions about Wills, Starting a new business, intentional torts, fence encroachments, irrevocable trusts, and home owner's associations. Ted also interviews special guest Keith Mather with Pipeline Social Media.

A Video Explaining Various Defenses to Intentional Torts https://zalma.com/blog Self-Defense and Defense of a Third Party The California Civil Code states: Any necessary force may be used to protect from wrongful injury the person or property of oneself, or of a wife, husband, child, parent, or other relative, or member of one's family, or of a ward, servant, master or guest. (California Civil Code § 50) The person must reasonably believe that danger exists, and must use only such force as is reasonably necessary. Defenses to Battery—Use of Deadly Force Deadly force or force likely to cause bodily harm is not justified merely in defense of property. Spring guns or other deadly mechanical devices are to be used only if deadly force is justifiable. Deadly force may be used against a felonious trespasser. Use of Reasonable Force This is always a defense. For example: holding a violent person's arms behind his back; striking a dog about to attack a child; holding a person who was intentionally striking a child; or escorting a trespasser off the premises. Defenses to Defamation, Including Libel and Slander Defenses to False Imprisonment Reasonable detention without arrest is a judicial privilege codified by California Penal Code § 490.5(f)(1). For example, a storekeeper who believes a theft has been committed may detain the suspected person for a reasonable time. Defense of Champerty And Maintenance Using venture capital to finance litigation has been tolerated in many states because defendants often have more funds available than injured plaintiffs. Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court, and a few others, have called into question whether such arrangements violate the traditional rule against champerty and maintenance. © 2021 – Barry Zalma Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He also serves as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 52 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and zalma@zalma.com. Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine/ACE Legend Award. Over the last 53 years Barry Zalma has dedicated his life to insurance, insurance claims and the need to defeat insurance fraud. He has created the following library of books and other materials to make it possible for insurers and their claims staff to become insurance claims professionals. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/ Read posts from Barry Zalma at https://parler.com/profile/Zalma/posts; and the last two issues of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ podcast now available at https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/zalma-on-insurance/id1509583809?uo=4 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma/support

A Video Explaining Intentional Torts https://zalma.com/blog Negligence, strict liability, absolute liability, and products liability all are “accidental” by definition: the persons being held liable for injury to the plaintiff had no intent to harm the plaintiff. Intentional torts are harmful or offensive contact, intentionally done. If I attempt to hit you but hit someone else, have I committed a battery? Yes. It was the intent to wrongfully touch someone that establishes the tort. The intent is called “scienter,” which is an evil intent. Intentional torts come in many forms, some of which are described below. Battery is the intentional use of force or violence upon the person of another; or the intentional administration of a poison or other noxious liquid or substance to another. Assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another. The investigation and defenses to the tort are identical to that of battery. A battery occurs when the attempt to commit a violent injury included within the definition of assault is effected and a person is actually injured. Trespass: A person who comes on the land without privilege or consent commits the tort of trespass. A person who trespasses is presumed to have harmed the land. The extent of the harm is subject to proof. Defamation is an invasion of the interest in reputation. It includes libel, which is a written defamation, and slander, which is an oral defamation. To prove defamation the plaintiff must show a publication that is false and that has a natural tendency to injure or which causes special damage. The publication must be intended, but no malice or ill will is required. False imprisonment is “the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another.” (California Penal Code § 236). The tort requires direct restraint of the person for an appreciable length of time. The plaintiff must have been compelled to stay or go somewhere against his or her will. The physical force may be slight, like an officer putting his hand on a person's shoulder. Actual force is not essential. The restraint can be by words, gestures, or acts. A false arrest is one way to commit the tort of false imprisonment. Malicious Prosecution was originally limited to unjustifiable criminal litigation, causing damage to reputation, and the expense of defending proceedings. Initiating or procuring the arrest and prosecution of another under lawful process, but for malicious motives and without probable cause, is tortious. A person who causes a third person to institute a malicious prosecution is liable, as if he or she had personally instituted it. It has often been held that actions for malicious prosecution are, for reasons of public policy, “not favored.” The tort now applies to maliciously prosecuted civil actions as well as criminal. © 2021 – Barry Zalma --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma/support

This podcast will discuss intentional torts. Derivative work from the following original:Torts: Cases and Context, Volumes 1 & 2, by Eric E. Johnson. The casebooks are published by CALI eLangdell Press and licensed Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. This derivative work is licensed the same as the original.

This podcast will discuss defenses to intentional torts. Derivative work from the following original:Torts: Cases and Context, Volumes 1 & 2, by Eric E. Johnson. The casebooks are published by CALI eLangdell Press and licensed Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. This derivative work is licensed the same as the original.

Have you ever wondered what exactly goes into completing an ALI project? There’s nobody better to talk about the ALI process than four veteran Reporters whose projects may be completed at the 2021 Annual Meeting. In this episode of Reasonably Speaking, Reporter on one of our newest projects, Lyrissa Lidsky from Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Defamation and Privacy will moderate the panel of Matthew L.M. Fletcher (American Indian Law), Geoffrey P. Miller (Compliance and Enforcement for Organizations), Kenneth W. Simons (Intentional Torts), and Christiane C. Wendehorst (Principles for a Data Economy), as they discuss their journey from project conception to ALI member approval and completion. They will discuss how they came to be an ALI Reporter, how they work with project Advisers and ALI members, the draft approval process, surprises they learned along the way, and more.

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today, we're talking about defamation -- a topic you might see on a Torts essay along with other intentional torts, and sometimes on the MBE as well. We also highlight some of the other intentional torts that are commonly triggered in a defamation fact pattern. In this episode, we discuss: The five elements of defamation When is a statement of opinion actionable? The difference between defamation claims brought by private figures and public figures The "slander per se" rule for damages Analyzing three fact patterns involving defamation claims What are the common defenses to defamation? Resources: Bar Exam Writing Help (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-writing-help/) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2009 (https://juraxbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/February-2009-CBX.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2020 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/February-2020-Essay-Selected-Answers.pdf) Podcast Episode 87: Listen and Learn -- Homicide (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-87-listen-and-learn-homicide/) Podcast Episode 88: Listen and Learn – Negligence Per Se (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-88-listen-and-learn-negligence-per-se/) Podcast Episode 89: Listen and Learn – What Is Hearsay? (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-89-listen-and-learn-what-is-hearsay/) Podcast Episode 91: Listen and Learn – Logical and Legal Relevance (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-91-listen-and-learn-logical-and-legal-relevance/) Podcast Episode 92: Listen and Learn – Subject Matter Jurisdiction (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-92-listen-and-learn-subject-matter-jurisdiction/) Podcast Episode 93: Listen and Learn – Constructive Eviction (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-93-listen-and-learn-constructive-eviction/) Podcast Episode 95: Listen and Learn – Promissory Estoppel (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-95-listen-and-learn-promissory-estoppel/) Podcast Episode 97: Listen and Learn – The Reasonable Person Standard (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-97-listen-and-learn-the-reasonable-person-standard/) Podcast Episode 98: Listen and Learn – The “Battle of the Forms” Under  UCC 2-207 (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-98-listen-and-learn-the-battle-of-the-forms-under-ucc-2-207/) Podcast Episode 101: Listen and Learn – Present Sense Impression vs. State of Mind (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-101-listen-and-learn-present-sense-impression-vs-state-of-mind/) Podcast Episode 102: Listen and Learn – The Statute of Frauds (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-102-listen-and-learn-the-statute-of-frauds/) Podcast Episode 103: Listen and Learn – Assault and Battery (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-103-listen-and-learn-assault-and-battery/) Tackling Torts MBE Questions (https://barexamtoolbox.com/tackling-torts-mbe-questions/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-104-listen-and-learn-intentional-torts-defamation/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor (alleged wrongdoer). The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

In this podcast, we read you 10 key questions & answers that give you important background knowledge of Torts: Intentional Torts, which is critical to the more detailed questions that might arise on the Bar Exam.For example:0:46 -- What intent is needed for intentional torts?1:06 -- Are children and the mentally incompetent liable for their own torts?2:48 -- What qualifies as contact for battery?4:01 -- Does P need to prove harm for battery?These podcasts are perfect for "passive studying" while you're exercising, cooking, cleaning, commuting, or otherwise unable to focus on the Brainscape app itself.Of course, the most effective way to study is to use Brainscape's adaptive web & mobile flashcards app, which covers comprehensive background knowledge pulled from all the top bar exam prep courses. Remember that you can learn more about it at http://bit.ly/brainscapeMBE . Best of luck on your studies!

This is the summary of Chapter 4: Intentional Torts and Torts Impacting Business

This episode reviews intentional torts to the person - battery, assault false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The episode begins with an explanation of intent and then discusses the rules and relevant case law necessary to understand each of the four intentional torts to the person. We end with an analytical framework and strategy for attacking these torts on a law school exam.As always, if you have any suggestions for an episode topic, please let us know! You can email us at leslie@lawtofact.com or tweet to @lawtofact. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter and Instagram (@lawtofact) and to like us on Facebook! And finally, your ratings and reviews matter! Please leave us a review on iTunes.Want to stay updated on all things Law to Fact? Join our mailing list by visiting us at www.lawtofact.com.

This episode reviews intentional torts to property - trespass to land, trespass to chattels and conversion. The episode discusses the rules and relevant case law necessary to understand each of the three intentional torts to property and details their similarities and differences. We end with an analytical framework and strategy for attacking these torts on a law school exam.As always, if you have any suggestions for an episode topic, please let us know! You can email us at leslie@lawtofact.com or tweet to @lawtofact. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter and Instagram (@lawtofact) and to like us on Facebook! And finally, your ratings and reviews matter! Please leave us a review on iTunes.Want to stay updated on all things Law to Fact? Join our mailing list by visiting us at www.lawtofact.com.

Your very first introductory episode to defences in torts is here! Quite unlikely (and gruesome?), the case law in this area revolves around glass shards being thrown in a stand-off and Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions. From necessity to consent, we traverse this difficult landscape with Nam Kiet Nguyen and Patrick Hendy. *Note: pay attention, as the part about Mike Tyson is highly relevant!

Introduction to Torts.

Introduction to Torts.

Introduction to Torts.

Introduction to Torts.

Introduction to Torts.

Introduction to Torts.