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 … Get full access to Marnie’s Substack at marniekhaw.substack.com/subscribe
