Finals Outline - Intentional Interference with Person or...

Intentional Interference with Person or Property
Intent
Garratt v Dailey (1955)
Battery; 5 yo child pulls chair from under old lady. Intent
two-part test: (1) the act must be done for the purpose of
causing the conduct ( purpose ) or (2) the actor must be
substantially certain that the conduct would cause the result
( substantial certainty ) – either one or both constitute intent.
(Note: definition is subjective). The question of purpose here
was proved by the factual evidence: if evidence showed that
Brian moved the chair as Ruth was about to sit down, it was
patently for the purpose or with the intent to cause Ruth bodily
contact with the ground.
For intentional torts, the thing you have to intend to happen
varies from tort to tort. For battery, you have to intend to cause
a harmful touching.
Garratt definition of battery: the intent to cause a harmful
contact with another.
Wagner v State (2005)
Battery; K-Mart line, woman attacked by mentally-disabled
patient under state supervision. The court found that an actor
needs only to intend to make contact with another and not
intend to harm or offense through his deliberate contact. An
insane person is liable for his torts.
A harmful or offensive contact is simply one to which the
recipient of the contract has not consented with directly or
indirectly. This includes all physical contacts that the person
either expressly communicates are unwanted or those contact
to which no reasonable person would consent.
McGuire v Almy (1937)
Battery; registered nurse in insane asylum was attacked with a
low-boy by an insane person. Where an insane person can
entertain the intent necessary for a battery then she would be
liable without regard to whether or not she is insane. (No
intent: if she was having a seizure, flailing her arms, etc.) To
be liable for battery, you have to intend to strike and injure .
Evidence here of intent to strike and injure : She rips the leg off
the table and threatened the plaintiff and then hits her over the
head. Intent to injure is proven by her saying that she wanted
to kill the plaintiff.
Transferred Intent
Talmage v Smith
Battery; Smith threw the stick intending to hit Byron but hit
Talmage instead. The Court held that because Smith intended
to hit someone, the fact that it happened to someone else
shouldn’t be an excuse. The right of P to recover was made to
depend upon an intention on the part of D to hit somebody ,
and to inflict an unwarranted injury upon someone.
Note : Under the Transferred Intent doctrine , we not only
transfer the intent, we also transfer the defense (e.g. if D was
acting in lawful self defense against another person, he is not
liable if he hit another person).
Cf. Mistake rule: if a person has all the intent necessary to
commit a tort, his mistake as to something irrelevant like the
identity of the person is no excuse.