Intentional Torts Posts
At its meeting in New York City on October 19 and 20, The American Law Institute’s Council reviewed drafts for eight projects, with the following outcomes:
According to the most recent draft of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Intentional Torts to Persons, the intentional torts protect the rightholder’s interests differently from negligence-based rules and strict liability, placing them into a distinct substantive category. This conceptualization, however, does not provide courts with adequate guidance on how to formulate the element of intent.
This article offers a bold proposal: eliminate the intentional tort of battery and merge cases of both the negligent and intentional imposition of physical harm into a single new tort.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court decision dismissing a law professor’s lawsuit against Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law’s former interim dean.
This focuses on the claims for invasion of privacy and the four causes of action generally contained therein. These four claims can be defined as public disclosure of private facts, intrusion upon seclusion, false light, and appropriation of name or likeness.
Nonconsensual condom removal during sexual intercourse exposes victims to physical risks of pregnancy and disease and, interviews make clear, is experienced by many as a grave violation of dignity and autonomy.
The ALI Adviser regularly shares content of ALI drafts. Due to the length of the Section, full black letter and the first paragraph of each comment section are included below.
Section 3 – Battery: Definition of Offensive Contact, of the Intentional Torts project appeared at ALI’s Annual Meeting in 2015 (at the time it was numbered Section 103). Due to a close vote on Section 3(b) (then 103(b)), it was agreed that this Section would be brought back to a future Annual Meeting.
Mr. Eichenwald, a journalist who has been critical of President Donald Trump, was sent an image via Twitter that intentionally caused him to have a seizure. The tweet read, “you deserve a seizure for your posts.” Mr. Eichenwald filed paperwork in a Dallas court asking Twitter to identify the person who sent the tweet, and Twitter has indicated that it will turn over the data on the user.