Intentional Torts


Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 INTENTIONAL TORTS OUTLINE 1) INTENT a) Garret v. Dailey i) Boy pulls chair out from π as π sits down. ii) If Boy knows with substantial certainty that a particular effect will occur as a result of his action, he is deemed to have intended that result. b) Spivey v. Battaglia i) Friendly unsolicited hug by , who knew that π was shy. ii) Π suffered damages from hug, filed suit for assault and battery & negligence. iii) Intent (battery)—knowledge with a substantial certainly of harmful or offensive contact. iv) Negligence when a danger is only a foreseeable risk, which a reasonable person would avoid. v) held liable for negligence because the did not know with substantial certainty that there was a harmful or offensive contact, so the risk was only foreseeable. c) Ranson v. Kitner i) Hunter shot what he thought was a wolf, but instead was plaintiffs dog. ii) It it’s the intent to invade the interest of another that matters. (GENERAL RULE) iii) Doctrine of Mistake is an exception to the general rule. (1) Generally, mistake to the identity of the person or animal does not negate intent. If he were not held liable for his mistake, he would be unjustly enriched. iv) Knowledge with substantial certainty that harm will occur.—required for intentional tort. d) McGuire v. Almy i) Mentally insane woman attacked her caretaker. ii) The particular intent that would be necessary in order to render a normal person liable, the insane person, in order to be liable, must have been capable of capable of entertaining that same intent and must have entertained it in fact. iii) was capable of entertaining and did entertain the intent to strike and injure π, and she acted upon that intent, therefore, she was liable. e) Talmage v. Smith i) threw stick intending to hit boy other than π. ii) Transferred intent : Law recognizes that intent can transfer from one cause of action to another and from one person to another. iii) There are 5 torts that fall within the trespass writ: battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels. When intends any one of the 5, and accidentally accomplishes any 1 of the 5, the doctrine applies and the is liable. 2) BATTERY a) Cole v. Turner i) Battery —intentional infliction of harmful or offensive contact.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
ii) What elements are necessary for cause of action? (1) The intent to bring about a harmful or offensive contact. (2) Knowledge with substantial certainly that my actions will bring about a harmful or offensive contact. iii) It is a reasonableness standard that is applied to the offensive contact. b) RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS (1965) i) "§ 13. Battery: Harmful Contact (1) "An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if: (a) "He acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and (b) “A harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results." ii) "§ 18. Battery: Offensive Contact
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/21/2009 for the course LAW LAW 101 taught by Professor Bowman during the Spring '98 term at Cornell College.

Page1 / 64


This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online