100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 35 pages.
Intentional Interference with Person or PropertyIntentGarratt v Dailey (1955)Battery; 5 yo child pulls chair from under old lady. Intenttwo-part test:(1) the act must be done for the purpose ofcausing the conduct (purpose) or (2) the actor must besubstantially certain that the conduct would cause the result(substantial certainty) – either one or both constitute intent.(Note: definition is subjective). The question of purpose herewas proved by the factual evidence: if evidence showed thatBrian moved the chair as Ruth was about to sit down, it waspatently for the purpose or with the intent to cause Ruth bodilycontact with the ground.For intentional torts, the thing you have to intend to happenvaries from tort to tort. For battery, you have to intend to causea harmful touching.Garrattdefinition of battery: the intent to cause a harmfulcontact with another.Wagner v State (2005)Battery; K-Mart line, woman attacked by mentally-disabledpatient under state supervision. The court found that an actorneeds only tointend to make contact with anotherand notintend to harm or offense through his deliberate contact. Aninsane person is liable for his torts. A harmful or offensive contactis simply one to which therecipient of the contract has not consented with directly orindirectly. This includes all physical contacts that the personeither expressly communicates are unwanted or those contactto which no reasonable person would consent.McGuire v Almy (1937)Battery; registered nurse in insane asylum was attacked with alow-boy by an insane person. Where an insane person canentertain the intent necessary for a battery then she would beliable without regard to whether or not she is insane. (Nointent: if she was having a seizure, flailing her arms, etc.) Tobe liable for battery, you have to intend to strike and injure.Evidence here of intent to strike and injure: She rips the leg offthe table and threatened the plaintiff and then hits her over thehead. Intent to injure is proven by her saying that she wantedto kill the plaintiff.Transferred IntentTalmage v SmithBattery; Smith threw the stick intending to hit Byron but hitTalmage instead. The Court held that because Smith intendedto hit someone, the fact that it happened to someone elseshouldn’t be an excuse. The right of P to recover was made todepend upon an intention on the part of D to hit somebody,and to inflict an unwarranted injuryupon someone.Note: Under the Transferred Intent doctrine, we not onlytransfer the intent, we also transfer the defense(e.g. if D wasacting in lawful self defense against another person, he is notliable if he hit another person).Cf. Mistake rule:if a person has all the intent necessary tocommit a tort, his mistake as to something irrelevant like theidentity of the person is no excuse.