Rawhide-jr covered the criminal acts better than I can – I haven’t been a prosecutor for about 20 years, and he’s involved in criminal activity every day. Er, I mean “…in recognizing criminal activity”. Of course, he’s handicapped by his youth, as evidenced by the fact that he has not yet learned that attorneys are the real guardians of peace and justice. After all, they protect society from – what’s a good example? Oh, yeah…SNOT-NOSED KIDS WITH BADGES WHO VIOLATE CITZENS’ CIVIL RIGHTS!!!!!
Now, where was I? Oh, yes, the civil aspect…
NELIGENCE – Negligence is the failure to do something a reasonable, prudent person in the same circumstances would do, or, conversely, committing an act a reasonable, prudent person would not do. It’s pretty clear, then, that the students were negligent – they engaged in a threatening act that a reasonable, prudent person would not (pointing what appeared to be a weapon at a person and threatening their life). In fact, the act of storming the building, even without weapons, fits the definition of negligence, as their behavior would be taken as threatening by most people in Prudence’s situation. More importantly, the facts above make clear that Prudence was harmed by the negligence – thus, you have proximate cause, a condition necessary for negligence. In fact, given the facts, there is a good argument that this was negligent infliction of emotional harm. Negligent infliction of emotional harm requires that the students’ actions were “outrageous”, that Prudence suffered emotional distress, and that her emotional distress was severe. The term “outrageous” means more than simply carelessness – it reflects a kind of behavior that “shocks the court”.
The facts certainly show that Prudence suffered emotional distress. It can be categorized as severe as demonstrated by the fact she was unable to work for a period of time, and was able to return to work only with the assistance of medication. The real question is whether the students’ conduct was outrageous.
While the “gun” was a toy, it looked just like a real gun. It is reasonable that Prudence feared for her life. The threat appeared real. And given the circumstances (that the students were simply protesting rising tuition) makes the level of the threat outrageous.
LAWS AND RIGHTS VIOLATED – As I said, I’ll defer to rawhide-jr on the criminal laws. That leaves “rights”. This is something of a trick question. Most rights are conferred as protection against government action – the right of speech, life, liberty, etc. In that respect, no rights were violated – the students were not government actors or agents.
Some states, however, have codified certain tortuous conduct for purposes of civil liability. And many have enacted so-called civil rights statutes that allow people to sue other individuals for violations that are based on specified conduct. An example are so-called “hate crimes”, which can be a bit of a misnomer as they can, in some jurisdictions, have applicability in civil actions as well as criminal. However, there is nothing in the facts to suggest that this is the case in this jurisdiction, so we’ll set that aside.
It could be argued that people have the “right” to be free from tortuous conduct – the remedy for a violation of such a “right” is a civil law suit for the torts committed. You might want to mention that, but note that these are not “rights” per se, as they are circumstances that give rise to a civil cause of action. To that extent, any torts committed violated rights.
WHO IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES – This one is interesting. But let’s attack it as part of the next section.
WHO IS LIABLE FOR TORT DAMAGES – You have to first determine which torts were committed. Once you do that, you can then determine who committed the acts.
We’ve already established that emotional distressed was experienced by Prudence. The question, then, is who is responsible or liable for the harm caused by that tort. It’s probably natural for someone to say, “They all should pay – everything happened because they all went rioted”. But that’s not correct – remember, you have to demonstrate proximate cause. So look at the facts. When the students arrived, there is nothing that indicates that Prudence suffered any distress that lead to harm – she had the presence to pick up the phone to call the police. Same as when the phone was slapped from her hand. In and of itself, that didn’t cause her harm – at least, the facts don’t demonstrate that. But when the student pointed the gun and threatened her, she immediately collapsed. So good ol’ Steve is definitely liable for the harm from the emotional distress.
Now you could argue that the earlier actions – the riot, slapping the phone from her hand – contributed to the emotional distress and that the gun and the threat were the final straw. It would be a good argument. But there is nothing in the facts to indicate that Prudence’s emotional status got worse with each of those events. You can argue that any reasonable person in those circumstances would feel anxiety and increasing distress, but, again, there is no proof. So, for emotional distress, good old Steve – absent any facts otherwise – is solely liable.
Let’s turn to assault and battery. Remember, we’re discussing torts now, and not criminal statutes. The difference between assault and battery is that assault is just a threat; battery is a physical act. Assault requires that the person assaulted had reasonable grounds to be in fear for their safety. It doesn’t matter, as in this case, whether the threat was real or valid; the issue is whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances would feel fear. The gun looked real; Steve threatened to kill Prudence; Steve’s act of slapping the phone from her hand was a physical, intimidating act. Steve assaulted Prudence.
Did he batter her? Battery requires that the person committing it intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person or an imminent apprehension of such contact and the person committing battery directly or indirectly made “offensive” contact. However, battery isn’t limited to actual contact with the person battered. In cases of “offensive” battery as opposed to “harmful” battery (the former is something that affects you dignity, such as being spit upon; the latter is being struck) it also includes contact with anything so directly connected or attached to the person being battered that it is considered a part of the person. Court cases have held that seizing something being held by another is “offensive” battery, such as taking a plate from them, or striking a cane. Given this, at first blush Steve committed “offensive” battery. However, was the act “offensive”? Did it act against Prudence’s dignity? I would argue it does not – therefore, no “offensive” battery. So, was it “harmful” battery? Again, I would say it is not. Steve did not actually strike Prudence. So, no liability for Steve. He gets a break here.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT – In reality, false imprisonment doesn’t exist – it’s actually covered by other torts. However, it’s great for these kinds of fact situations, so let’s run with it…
False imprisonment requires that someone confines another such that the one confined can’t leave. On that point, it appears that Chandler was imprisoned. But was he? Did he have another exit? A window wouldn’t do – for false imprisonment, it isn’t a defense that there is an “exit” the use of which would endanger the person using it. So if Chandler’s office had a window, that would not be a defense – his office was on the third floor. Did he have another door? We don’t know from the facts. So we have to assume there wasn’t one.
The trick here is that he was asleep – he never knew he was confined; he never attempted to leave and was prevented from doing so. While there are some cases that hold that you can't imprison someone when they are unaware of it, the law generally holds that you can – the confined person’s mental state goes to damages. That is to say, while he was certainly imprisoned, he suffered no harm if he didn’t know or didn’t actually try to leave. So, technically, there was a tort of false imprisonment, but no one is liable as Chandler never knew of it and suffered no harm from it.
Anyway, that should be enough to get you started, I think…
