Finals Outline - Intentional Interference with Person or Property Intent Garratt v Dailey(1955 Battery 5 yo child pulls chair from under old lady Intent

Finals Outline - Intentional Interference with Person or...

  • Brooklyn Law School
  • TORTS 101
  • Notes
  • charlenewarner
  • 35
  • 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 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.
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 35 pages?

  • Fall '07
  • Bernstein
  • Tort Law, person

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture