1. Harry and Sally v.

crowd ( battery, assault)

The first issue is whether a crowd member can have a case of action for battery against
either Hally or Sally when they were throwing sharp elbows at the crowd.
A battery requires a volition act, intent, that the act result in harmful or offensive contact.
Intent is satisfied if an actor acts with desire of producing a consequence or it is subsntantially
certain that a consequence is substantially certain to result from the action.No damages are
needed as intentional torts can result in nominal damages. A harmful contact requires bodily
harm and an offensive contact means that it would be offensive to the others reasonable sense of
dignity. The harmful or offensive contact is judged from an objective standard. We judge this
standard by whether the reasonable ordinary person would be offended or hurt by the contact. A
plaintiff’s ultra sensitivities are not taken into account unless the defendant knew about them. In
addition, the glass cage defense says that in a crowded world, a certain amount of personal
contact is inevitable and must be accepted. Consent is assumed to all those ordinary contacts
which are customary and reasonably necessary to the common intercourse of life.
Here, a volition act occurred because it was done under the defendant’s control; they
voluntarily decided to throw the elbows. The intent element is satisfied because it was
substantially certain that contact would result from throwing elbows around a crowded area.
Being elbowed in a crowded setting may be offensive to a person’s reasonable sense of dignity
and slightly painful. Therefore, the battery element is met and a crowd member could bring a
cause of action for the elbowing although it may be dismissed or result in nominal damages.
However, the defendants could argue the glass cage defense because it is reaosnable that contact
in that specific setting and area would result in people being angry and aggressive. They could
also argue implied consent through their conduct in attending an event known for being
aggressive.
The next issue is whether Harry and Sally could be liable for assault towards Manny
when they told him to stay out of their way after the doors opened.
An assault claim requires an intentional act by the defendant that causes a reasonable
apprehension in the plaintiff of immediate harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person.
Immediate means without delay while apprehension means that the actor just has to understand
that a harmful or offensive act is about to happen; fear is not necessary for apprehension to be
satisfied. In addition, words are usually not enough and must be coupled with actions or
circumstances.
Here, it is not substantially certain that the couple intended a reasonable apprehension of
imminent contact. The circumstances show that they were all laughing and making light of a bad
situation. In addition, the words were not coupled with actions and Manny was not met with an
oppressive environment. Had the words been said and then the couple got in his face, there might
have been a cause of action. However, a reasonable person would not be just in believing this
was an imminent threat for a harmful or offensive contact.
The next issue is whether there was a claim of negligence for Manny against Harry when
he grabbed him by the elbow and Manny fell down.
 Negligence requires a duty from the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, the
act must be the proximate and cause in fact that results in damages to the plaintiff which is a
legal cognizable injury. The act here was not intentional because Harry merely intended to slow
him down; he did not intend to knock him to the floor.
Generally, one owes a duty of care to all people who are foreseeable victims of one’s
failure to take precations. One generally does not have a duty to act, warn, or rescue another
absent one of the affirmative duties in the Third restatement. One exception is the duty to render
aid if your actions result in harm even if the prior conduct was not tortious.
In grabbing Manny’s elbow, Harry did not created an unreasonable risk of injury to him.
However, the action resulted in a continuous risk of physical harm, therefore when Manny fell to
the floor, he had a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent or minimize the harm.
Breach of a duty is a failure to conform to the standard of care for the protection of others
against an unreasonable risk of harm. Precautions must be taken under a reaosonably prudent
person under the same or similar circumstances. Breach is usually measured by the learned hand
formula which establishes a breach where the burden of taking reasonable care is less than the
probability of the injury occuring multiplied by the magnitude of the loss if harm is to result.
Here, Harry simply had to help Manny up to prevent the trampling from occuring. The
probability of the accident occuring was high because of the multitude of people rushing to the
store. Trampling usually results in a high injury or in cases like this one, death. Therefore, the
burden of helping Manny up was less than the probability and magnitude of the injury. Harry
breached the standard of care under the formula.
Causation requires proximate cause and cause in fact. Cause in fact is the actual cause,
meaning that “but for” the defendant’s conduct, the injury would not have occured. Proximate
cause limits causation to the reasonably foreseeable consequences of an actors conduct.
Here, but for Harry grabbing Manny’s arm, he would not have fallen to the ground and
gotten trampled. He was completely fine and was even doing well in getting into the store which
was the reason Harry even grabbed him in the first place. Concerning proximate cause, the injury
of grabbing someone to slow them down could result in bodily injury because it is reasonably
foreseable that they could fall down and hurt themselves. Therefore, because the type of injury,
bodily harm, was foreseable and did result in bodily harm, the extent or the manner in which the
injury occured is irrelvant and proximate cause is established.
Finally, damages must be proved as nominal damages are not awarded in negligence. A
legal cognizable injury must result from the act.
Here, the act resulted in bodily injury and death. Which are legally cognizable injuries in
tort law. Because Harry had a duty, he breached the duty, and the act caused a legal cognizable
injury, negligence is established and Manny’s estate could recover.
The defendant could try arguing a superseeding cause, however, because it was
reasonably foreseeable that an intervention, the trampling, could occur in the setting, this is not
likely to free Harry from liability.
 The next issue is whether Minnie and Mickey could have a cause of action against the
security guards for false imprisonment.
False imprisonment requires that the defendant intended the confinement within a
bounded area, the conduct directly or indirectly resulted in confinement or they fail to release the
other despite having a duty to do so, and awareness by the plaintiff of their confinement or
bodily injury resulting as a result of their confinement. An escae area is not bounded in any case
if there is a reasonable means of escape of which the plaintiff is aware.
Here, the security guard had no authority to confine the plaintiffs because he was not
working as a police officer. He was substantially certain that locking the door would result in
confinement, therefore the intent element is met. The conduct did result in confinement because
it is not stated that they escaped or even knew about a reasonable means of escape. Therefore,
the conduct resulted in a direct confinement of the bounded area of the office. The last element
will need more information. The confinement must result in awareness or bodily injury.
However, it more likely than not that Minnie and Mickey had a reasonable belief that they were
being confined; the security guard was wearing his police officer uniform and they were lead into
the room and locked in there by themselves. Any reasonable person would believe that they were
being confined and were not free to leave.

Issue 2