Episode 1: Introduction to the Bar Exam and the Birth of Civil Wrongs

Welcome to Reading the Bar with Marnie, where we don't just learn the law—we master it methodically. In this episode, we'll build your foundation in intentional torts, one of the most frequently tested topics on the MBE. By the end, you'll understand not just what the law is, but why it exists and how to apply it under pressure.

Unless stated otherwise, I'll be laying out the national doctrine as tested on the Multistate Bar Exam (MBE). For California bar takers, I'll flag state-specific nuances.

Episode 1 Roadmap:

* Bar Exam Structure and Approach

* Why Start with Torts: Intentional Torts Framework (FAB CITT)

* The Seven Intentional Torts: Rules, Elements, Mnemonics, Legal Philosophy, Cases, and Applications

* MBE and Essay Strategies for Each Tort

* Common Pitfalls and Test-Taking Tips

Each episode has two parts: Part One: The doctrinal framework—rules, elements, mnemonics, legal philosophy, and landmark cases to anchor your memory. This is your repeatable resource to drill the essentials. Part Two: The practical applications—examination strategies, common traps, and bar exam techniques to ace MBE questions and essays.

Part One: The Framework

Doctrinal Rules • Legal Philosophy • Landmark Cases

The Bar Exam: A Test of Precision

The bar exam demands clarity, discipline, and speed—not brilliance or creativity. As Justice Felix Frankfurter, a U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice from 1939 to 1962, wrote in 1954, "The law is what the lawyers are." This reflects the exam's focus on legal formalism: applying rules logically, independent of personal morality or fairness.

California's Bar Exam Structure: Five 1-hour essay questions, testing California and national law. One 90-minute performance test, assessing practical lawyering skills. The 200-question MBE, covering seven subjects: Torts, Contracts, Real Property, Evidence, Criminal Law and Procedure, Constitutional Law, and Civil Procedure.

The Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) is identical across jurisdictions, including those using the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE), which swaps California's essays for six 30-minute essays and two performance tests.

Practice MBE questions daily to hit the 1.8-minute-per-question pace. The MBE's 200 questions must be answered in six hours, giving you about 1.8 minutes per question, so practice pacing to stay on track.

Memorization Tip: The Multistate Bar Exam (MBE)'s seven subjects form the acronym TCR ECC C—Torts, Contracts, Real Property, Evidence, Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure. Repeat it daily to lock it in.

Why Start with Torts?

Torts are a cornerstone of every MBE and a frequent essay topic, making them the perfect launchpad for bar prep. Intentional torts, with their precise rules and tight logic, offer a clear entry point, rooted in the natural rights theory that protects life, liberty, and property. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., a U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice from 1902 to 1932, wrote in The Common Law (1881), "The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience." Intentional torts reflect this balance of logic and historical evolution, shaping core legal principles tested on the bar.

Bar Insight: Intentional torts are Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) staples because their clear elements hide in tricky fact patterns. Mastering them builds confidence for the exam's 1.8-minute-per-question pace.

The Seven Intentional Torts: Mnemonic – FAB CITT

To master intentional torts, we begin with their framework, using the mnemonic FAB CITT: False Imprisonment, Assault, Battery, Conversion, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), Trespass to Land, Trespass to Chattels.

Even though our mnemonic is FAB CITT, we start with Battery and onwards instead of False Imprisonment because it lays the groundwork for understanding all intentional torts—it's the most concrete and intuitive example of how intentional acts translate into legal liability." These torts progress from harms to the person, to the mind, to property, reflecting the law's protection of fundamental rights.

We begin with the most physically grounded tort: Battery.

Battery: Protection of Bodily Autonomy

Rule: An intentional act causing harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff's person. Intent is for contact, not harm. Contact includes the body or closely connected items (e.g., clothing). Harmful means causing injury; offensive means unpermitted and unreasonable to a person of ordinary sensibilities.

Elements of Battery:

* Intent

* Contact

* Harmful or Offensive

* Plaintiff’s Person

For battery, imagine a flow chart: Intent → Contact → Harmful/Offensive → Liability. Visual learners, picture an arrow from a person's mind (intent) to the physical world (contact) to injury (harm).

* Intent is for contact, not harm.

* Contact includes clothing or anything attached to the body.

* Harmful = injury.

* Offensive = unpermitted and unreasonable.

Mnemonic for elements: ICHO – Intent, Contact, Harmful or Offensive.

Legal Philosophy: Battery is rooted in the natural rights tradition, particularly the Lockean view that individuals possess an inviolable right to bodily autonomy. The law intervenes not just to redress harm, but to protect this core aspect of personhood from even minor trespasses.

Quote: "The least touching of another's person willfully, without consent, is a battery." – Chief Justice John Holt, English jurist and Lord Chief Justice of England (1704, from Cole v. Turner). Holt's foundational statement underscores battery's focus on bodily autonomy, a principle central to tort law.

Case: Vosburg v. Putney (1891) In a Wisconsin classroom, 12-year-old Putney lightly kicked classmate Vosburg below the knee, unknowingly aggravating a dormant injury. The kick caused severe infection and permanent harm. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that intent to make unauthorized contact in a formal classroom—where physical contact isn't impliedly consented to—was sufficient for battery. Two bar-critical principles emerged: intent to touch is enough, and the eggshell plaintiff rule holds defendants liable for all harm, even if unforeseeably severe. This case is a bar exam staple for testing intent and damages.

Memorization Tip: Picture a fragile egg (Vosburg) cracked by a tap (Putney). The defendant owns the whole mess.

Moving from physical contact to the apprehension of contact, we now turn to Assault.

Assault: Protection of Mental Tranquility

Rule: An intentional act causing reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. The plaintiff must perceive the threat, and it must be imminent. Conduct, not mere words, typically triggers liability.

* The plaintiff must perceive the threat.

* Words alone are typically not enough.

Elements of Assault:

* Intent

* Reasonable Apprehension

* Imminent Harmful or Offensive Contact

Mnemonic for elements: IAI – Intent, Apprehension, Imminent.

Legal Philosophy: Assault reflects liberal individualism, particularly John Stuart Mill's view that personal security includes freedom from fear of imminent harm. The tort protects the psychological boundaries that uphold personal dignity and autonomy.

Quote: "The law protects not only against physical harm but against the fear of it." – Justice Samuel Nelson, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice from 1845 to 1872 (1856, from a lecture on tort law). Nelson's words highlight assault's role in safeguarding mental peace, a key bar concept.

Case: I de S et ux. v. W de S (1348) A man, denied entry to a tavern after closing, swung a hatchet at the tavernkeeper's wife as she leaned out a window. No contact occurred, but her reasonable fear of imminent harm was enough. This early English case established assault as a standalone tort, a foundational development in tort law frequently tested for its emphasis on apprehension over contact.

Memorization Tip: Imagine a hatchet swinging—fear alone is the injury.

Next, we shift from perceived threats to actual confinement. Let’s explore False Imprisonment.

False Imprisonment: Protection of Liberty

Rule: Intentional confinement within a bounded area, without legal authority or reasonable means of escape. The plaintiff must be aware of the confinement or suffer actual harm.

Elements of False Imprisonment:

* Confinement

* Unlawful (no legal authority)

* Bounded Area

* Awareness or Actual Harm

Mnemonic for elements: CUBA – Confinement, Unlawful, Bounded area, Awareness or actual harm.

Legal Philosophy: This tort draws on the classical liberal emphasis on freedom of movement and personal liberty. As with habeas corpus in constitutional law, false imprisonment reflects the law’s distrust of unchecked private or institutional power to detain.

Quote: "Personal liberty is the first right of every citizen, guarded by the law's strictest vigilance." – Justice David J. Brewer, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice from 1889 to 1910 (1891, from Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford). Brewer's emphasis on liberty aligns with false imprisonment's core principle.

Case: Big Town Nursing Home v. Newman (1970) Newman, a mentally competent 67-year-old, was detained in a nursing home against his will. Staff confiscated his clothes, locked exits, and coerced him to stay, without legal authority. The Texas appellate court ruled this was false imprisonment, clarifying that coercion alone can confine. This case is vital for bar exams, testing confinement and legal authority in shopkeeper or institutional scenarios.

Memorization Tip: Picture Newman trapped by locked doors—awareness is the key.

From bodily autonomy and liberty, we now turn to property rights. The most serious interference with personal property is Conversion.

Conversion: Protection of Property Rights

Rule: An intentional act of dominion over the plaintiff's personal property, seriously interfering with their rights (e.g., through destruction, sale, or withholding). Intent is for the act, not to harm.

Elements of Conversion:

* Intent to exercise control

* Serious interference with plaintiff’s rights

* Deprivation or destruction of property

Mnemonic for elements: SID – Serious interference, Intent to exercise control, Deprivation or destruction.

Legal Philosophy: Conversion is built on property-centric legal realism and the labor theory of value (Locke). It enforces the strong presumption that rightful ownership implies full dominion, and any serious interference is a wrongful usurpation of that dominion.

Quote: "The law of property protects the owner's dominion over his goods." – Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice from 1830 to 1860 (1851, from M'Naghten's Case commentary). Shaw's focus on dominion is central to conversion.

Case: Poggi v. Scott (1914) Poggi stored wine barrels in a basement under a tenancy agreement. The new landlord, Scott, mistakenly sold them, believing they were abandoned. The California Supreme Court held that exercising dominion over another's property, even in good faith, was conversion. This case is a bar exam classic for testing the distinction between serious interference and lesser harms.

Memorization Tip: Think of Scott stealing Poggi's wine—conversion is taking control.

While conversion protects ownership, the law also recognizes severe emotional harm. Some harms are not physical or economic—they strike the emotions. That brings us to Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, or IIED.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): Protection of Emotional Well-Being

Rule: Intentional or reckless extreme and outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress. The conduct must exceed all bounds of decency.

Elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED):

* Reckless or Intentional Conduct

* Extreme and Outrageous Behavior

* Severe Emotional Distress

Mnemonic for elements: REOS – Reckless/Intentional, Extreme & Outrageous, Severe distress.

Legal Philosophy: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) reflects the modern liberal and humanist turn in tort law, recognizing psychological and emotional injuries as worthy of legal protection. It stems from a jurisprudence of dignity, where outrage itself is evidence of a harm society condemns.

Quote: "Outrageous conduct that shocks the conscience demands a remedy." – Justice William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice from 1939 to 1975 (1965, from Griswold v. Connecticut dissent). Douglas's focus on outrageousness mirrors IIED's high threshold.

Case: State Rubbish Collectors Ass'n v. Siliznoff (1952) Siliznoff, a garbage hauler, was threatened with bodily harm and property damage by a waste association to force him to pay dues. The threats caused physical illness. The California Supreme Court recognized IIED as a standalone tort, a landmark shift in tort law frequently tested for its emphasis on extreme conduct and emotional harm.

Memorization Tip: Imagine Siliznoff sick from fear—outrageous threats are enough.

With emotional distress covered, we now turn to real property—the land itself. Let’s explore Trespass to Land.

Trespass to Land: Protection of Possessory Rights

Rule: Intentional entry onto another's land without permission, regardless of harm or intent to trespass. Intent is for the entry, not to violate rights.

Elements of Trespass to Land:

* Physical Entry

* Intent to Enter

* Plaintiff’s Land

* Entry Unauthorized

Mnemonic for elements: PIPE – Physical entry, Intent to enter, Plaintiff’s land, Entry unauthorized.

Legal Philosophy: This tort comes from Blackstonian property theory, emphasizing that the right to exclude others is the essence of ownership. Even minor entries violate this right, because law treats land ownership as a near-absolute form of dominion.

Quote: "The right to exclude others is the essence of property." – Justice Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice from 1811 to 1845 (1830, from Fletcher v. Peck commentary). Story's principle underpins trespass to land.

Case: Dougherty v. Stepp (1835) Stepp entered Dougherty's unenclosed forest land to survey it, mistakenly believing he owned it. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that unauthorized entry was trespass, regardless of good faith or damage. This case is bar-critical for clarifying that intent to enter, not to harm, triggers liability.

Memorization Tip: Picture Stepp stepping onto Dougherty's land—entry is the sin.

Finally, let’s zoom in from real property to personal belongings. Our last tort is Trespass to Chattels.

Trespass to Chattels: Protection of Personal Property

Rule: Intentional interference with the plaintiff's personal property, causing harm or dispossession. The interference must impair the property's condition, quality, or value.

Elements of Trespass to Chattels:

* Intent

* Actual Interference

* Harm or Dispossession

Mnemonic for elements: IHAD – Intent, Harm, Actual interference, Damage or dispossession.

Legal Philosophy: Trespass to chattels is informed by utilitarianism and economic efficiency theory. It allows for remedy when interference with personal property reduces utility or functionality, without invoking the harsher remedy of conversion. It recognizes gradations of harm in a commercial society.

Quote: "The law protects personal property with the same zeal as real property." – Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice from 1801 to 1835 (1825, from Gibbons v. Ogden commentary). Marshall's view supports trespass to chattels' scope.

Case: CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. (1997) Cyber Promotions flooded CompuServe's servers with spam, impairing functionality. The federal court ruled that digital interference was trespass to chattels, a landmark extension of tort law to technology. This case is vital for bar exams, testing modern applications of property torts.

Memorization Tip: Think of spam clogging CompuServe's servers—interference is key.

Comparative Analysis of Commonly Confused Torts

Let's compare frequently confused intentional torts:

* Battery vs. Assault: Physical contact vs. fear of contact or threat

* Conversion vs. Trespass to Chattels: Serious vs. minor interference

* False Imprisonment vs. IIED: Liberty restriction vs. emotional harm or peace

These distinctions are often tested on the MBE through fact patterns that blur the boundaries between torts. Remember that some actions may satisfy elements of multiple torts, allowing for multiple claims.

California Spotlight

California follows the majority rule on all intentional torts but applies a stricter “reasonableness” standard to offensive contact. In California, whether a reasonable person would find the contact offensive is heavily fact-dependent. California essays frequently test IIED in employment contexts—especially in cases involving bullying, retaliation, or harassment.

Part Two: Application and Bar Exam Strategies

With the doctrinal outline in place, let's add the application to conquer the bar. Part Two transforms rules into exam success by equipping you with strategies to tackle intentional torts on the Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) and essays. For each of the seven torts, we'll provide three tools: an MBE-style hypothetical to test your analysis, an essay IRAC example to structure your writing, and top bar exam pitfalls to avoid. These strategies will sharpen your skills for the MBE's 1.8-minute-per-question pace and essay precision.

MBE Strategy Overview

On the MBE, watch for questions testing the boundaries of intent. The correct answer often turns on whether intent transfers to unforeseen consequences or unforeseen victims. Remember, for intentional torts, intent is broadly construed—if you intend the act, consequences often follow.

For intentional tort questions on the MBE, use this 30-second approach:

* Identify the tort (5 seconds)

* Match elements to facts (15 seconds)

* Eliminate obviously wrong answers (5 seconds)

* Select best answer (5 seconds)

IRAC is the foundational method used in legal writing to organize analysis clearly and logically, especially on bar exam essays and law school exams.. It stands for Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion and is the most common structure used on law school exams and the bar exam.

IRAC is a method to break down legal writing into four logical steps:

IssueState the legal question raised by the facts.Example: Is Casey liable for battery when she pushed Diane into a locker?

RuleState the relevant legal rule that governs the issue. This includes naming the tort, the elements, and sometimes a case citation.Example: Battery requires an intentional act that causes harmful or offensive contact with another person.

AnalysisApply the rule to the specific facts of the problem. This is where the bulk of your points come from.Example: Casey intentionally pushed Diane, which resulted in harmful contact. In a school setting, that contact is not consented to. Even though Casey did not intend the injury, the eggshell plaintiff rule makes her liable for the full extent of Diane’s reaction.

ConclusionWrap it up. Say clearly what the legal result should be.Example: Therefore, Casey is liable for battery.

1. Battery: Strategies

MBE-Style Hypo: At a party, Alex, joking, pulls a chair from under Ben as he sits, causing Ben to fall and sprain his ankle. Unknown to Alex, Ben has brittle bones, worsening the injury. Is Alex liable for battery?

Analysis: Alex intentionally caused contact by pulling the chair, leading to Ben's fall (harmful contact). The act was unpermitted and offensive, even if meant as a prank. The eggshell plaintiff rule (Vosburg v. Putney) makes Alex liable for the full injury. Battery is satisfied.

Answer: Alex is liable for battery.

Essay IRAC Example: Prompt: During a school prank, Casey pushes Diane into a locker, causing a bruise. Diane, with a rare condition, suffers a severe allergic reaction. Discuss Casey's liability for battery.

IRAC: Issue: Is Casey liable for battery by pushing Diane? Rule: Battery requires an intentional act causing harmful or offensive contact (Vosburg v. Putney). Intent is for contact, not harm, and the eggshell plaintiff rule applies. Analysis: Casey's push was intentional and caused harmful contact (bruise). The contact was unpermitted in a school setting. The eggshell rule makes Casey liable for Diane severe reaction, despite its rarity. Conclusion: Casey is liable for battery.

Top Pitfalls:

* Assuming intent to harm is required—only intent to contact matters (Vosburg).

* Ignoring eggshell plaintiffs—Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) hypos often include fragile victims to test full liability.

2. Assault: Strategies

MBE-Style Hypo: Claire, angry, points a toy gun at Ethan, who believes it's real and cowers in fear. Claire laughs and walks away. Is Claire liable for assault?

Analysis: Claire's act of pointing the toy gun caused Ethan to reasonably apprehend imminent harmful contact, as he believed it was real. The threat was imminent and perceived, satisfying assault per I de S et ux. v. W de S.

Answer: Claire is liable for assault.

Essay IRAC Example: Prompt: Frank, during an argument, swings a stick near Gina's face, stopping short. Gina, terrified, freezes. Discuss Frank's liability for assault.

IRAC: Issue: Is Frank liable for assault by swinging the stick? Rule: Assault requires an intentional act causing reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact (I de S). The plaintiff must perceive the threat. Analysis: Frank's swing was intentional and caused Gina to apprehend imminent contact (she froze in fear). The threat was imminent, and her perception satisfies the rule. Conclusion: Frank is liable for assault.

Top Pitfalls:

* Forgetting perception—assault fails if the plaintiff is unaware (e.g., a threat from behind).

* Mistaking future threats (e.g., "I'll hit you tomorrow") for imminent harm—Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) tests timing.

3. False Imprisonment: Strategies

MBE-Style Hypo: A store guard, suspecting theft, locks Hana in a room and says, "Stay until I check your bag." Hana waits 20 minutes before release. No theft occurred. Is the guard liable for false imprisonment?

Analysis: The guard intentionally confined Hana in a locked room without reasonable escape. No legal authority existed, as shopkeeper's privilege requires reasonable suspicion and brief detention, which 20 minutes exceeds. Hana's awareness satisfies Big Town Nursing Home v. Newman.

Answer: The guard is liable for false imprisonment.

Essay IRAC Example: Prompt: Ian, a hospital nurse, locks patient Jane in a room, saying, "You can't leave until you sign this form." Jane, afraid, stays for an hour. Discuss Ian's liability for false imprisonment.

IRAC: Issue: Is Ian liable for false imprisonment by locking Jane? Rule: False imprisonment requires intentional confinement without legal authority or reasonable escape, with plaintiff awareness (Big Town Nursing Home v. Newman). Analysis: Ian's locking and coercion confined Jane without legal authority (no guardianship). The threat created a bounded area, and escape wasn't reasonable. Jane's awareness satisfies the rule. Conclusion: Ian is liable for false imprisonment.

Top Pitfalls:

* Assuming physical barriers are required—coercion or threats suffice (Newman).

* Overlooking shopkeeper's privilege—MBE tests its limits (reasonable suspicion, brief time).

4. Conversion: Strategies

MBE-Style Hypo: Kyle finds a laptop in a café, believes it's abandoned, and sells it. It belongs to Lila. Is Kyle liable for conversion?

Analysis: Kyle intentionally exercised dominion by selling Lila's laptop, seriously interfering with her rights. Good faith is irrelevant per Poggi v. Scott. Conversion is satisfied.

Answer: Kyle is liable for conversion.

Essay IRAC Example: Prompt: Mike, a landlord, takes Nora's stored furniture, thinking it's trash, and donates it. Discuss Mike's liability for conversion.

IRAC: Issue: Is Mike liable for conversion by donating Nora's furniture? Rule: Conversion requires intentional dominion over property, seriously interfering with the owner's rights (Poggi v. Scott). Intent is for the act, not harm. Analysis: Mike's donation was an intentional act of dominion, depriving Nora of her furniture. His mistake doesn't negate liability, as Poggi holds good faith irrelevant. Conclusion: Mike is liable for conversion.

Top Pitfalls:

* Confusing conversion with trespass to chattels—conversion requires serious interference (Poggi).

* Assuming bad faith is needed—MBE tests that intent to act suffices.

5. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): Strategies

MBE-Style Hypo: Owen, to scare Pia, falsely tells her, "Your child was kidnapped," causing Pia severe distress and illness. Is Owen liable for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)?

Analysis: Owen's false statement was intentional and outrageous, exceeding decency. It caused Pia's severe distress, satisfying State Rubbish Collectors Ass'n v. Siliznoff. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) is met.

Answer: Owen is liable for IIED.

Essay IRAC Example: Prompt: Quinn threatens to burn Rita's house unless she pays him, causing Rita panic attacks. Discuss Quinn's liability for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED).

IRAC: Issue: Is Quinn liable for IIED by threatening Rita? Rule: IIED requires intentional or reckless outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress (Siliznoff). Conduct must shock the conscience. Analysis: Quinn's threat was intentional and outrageous, targeting Rita's safety. Her panic attacks show severe distress, meeting Siliznoff's standard. Conclusion: Quinn is liable for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED).

Top Pitfalls:

* Underestimating "outrageous"—everyday insults don't qualify; look for extreme acts (Siliznoff).

* Forgetting severity—MBE requires distress beyond mere upset, often with physical symptoms.

6. Trespass to Land: Strategies

MBE-Style Hypo: Sam, lost, walks across Tara's unfenced yard to reach a road. Tara sees him. Is Sam liable for trespass to land?

Analysis: Sam intentionally entered Tara's land without permission. No harm or bad faith is required per Dougherty v. Stepp. Trespass is satisfied.

Answer: Sam is liable for trespass to land.

Essay IRAC Example: Prompt: Uma, surveying, enters Vic's forest, believing it's public land. Vic demands she leave. Discuss Uma's liability for trespass to land.

IRAC: Issue: Is Uma liable for trespass by entering Vic's land? Rule: Trespass to land requires intentional entry without permission, regardless of harm or intent to trespass (Dougherty v. Stepp). Analysis: Uma's entry was intentional, even if mistaken. Dougherty holds that good faith doesn't negate liability. Vic's land was entered without consent. Conclusion: Uma is liable for trespass to land.

Top Pitfalls:

* Assuming harm is needed—trespass requires only entry (Dougherty).

* Mistaking intent—MBE tests that intent to enter, not to trespass, is enough.

7. Trespass to Chattels: Strategies

MBE-Style Hypo: Wes borrows Xena's phone without permission, using it briefly but causing no damage. Is Wes liable for trespass to chattels?

Analysis: Wes intentionally interfered with Xena's phone by using it, but no harm or significant dispossession occurred. Per CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., impairment is required. Trespass fails.

Answer: Wes is not liable for trespass to chattels.

Essay IRAC Example: Prompt: Yuri sends spam to Zara's server, slowing it for hours. Discuss Yuri's liability for trespass to chattels.

IRAC: Issue: Is Yuri liable for trespass to chattels by spamming Zara's server? Rule: Trespass to chattels requires intentional interference causing harm or dispossession (CompuServe). Impairment of property's value or function suffices. Analysis: Yuri's spam intentionally interfered with Zara's server, slowing it significantly. CompuServe holds digital impairment actionable. The harm satisfies the rule. Conclusion: Yuri is liable for trespass to chattels.

Top Pitfalls:

* Confusing with conversion—trespass involves lesser interference (CompuServe vs. Poggi).

* Ignoring harm—MBE tests that minor use without impairment isn't trespass.

CALIFORNIA SPOTLIGHT

California follows the majority rule on all intentional torts covered today, but applies the 'reasonableness' standard for offensive contact more strictly than most jurisdictions. California essays often test whether a reasonable person would find the contact offensive in context. California bar examiners frequently test the limits of IIED, particularly in employment contexts, so pay special attention to workplace scenarios involving emotional distress claims.

Interactive Elements

PAUSE POINT: Before continuing, try to recite the seven intentional torts using our FAB CITT mnemonic. Then name one key element for each.

Final Strategy Tip: For essays, outline your IRAC before writing to stay focused. Memorize FAB CITT and the cases from Part One—they'll guide you through exam chaos.

Review Questions

Before our next episode, test yourself with these three questions:

* What are the seven intentional torts we covered?

* What is the difference between conversion and trespass to chattels?

* What element connects all intentional torts?

This concludes episode one which provides a comprehensive introduction to intentional torts, laying the groundwork for bar examination preparation. In the next episode, we will explore defenses to intentional torts, including consent, self-defense, defense of others and property, and necessity. These doctrines will be analyzed not only for their elements but also for their application and limitations, maintaining our dual approach of doctrinal structure and practical depth.

For the transcript to this podcast, visit my Substack and be sure to subscribe and follow at: https://open.substack.com/pub/marniekhaw/p/episode-1-introduction-to-the-bar.

California bar takers, check the State Bar website for essay tips: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Examinations.

The bar tests your knowledge—the world tests your character. Prepare for both. Keep studying with purpose—this is Marnie Khaw. I’ll catch you in our next episode.

Marnie’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.