This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Justin Hoffman Torts Outline Professor Joseph I Intro A) Early Strict Liability- Anonymous (Kings Bench, 1466) You are liable for any consequences of your action, even if there is no intent. a. Original Writ of Trespass Had to be a direct invasion of the plaintiffs person or property b. Trespass on the Case Indirect invasion of these interests. (A log falls on the road; if the log hit the plaintiff while walking, trespass. If the plaintiff trips and falls on the log after it lands, trespass on the case.) 1. For trespass, strict liability existed, for trespass on the case it was necessary to show fault on defendants part. c. Breakdown of Strict Liability 1. Weaver v. Ward (K.B. 1616) Defendants musket wounded Plaintiff as they were skirmishing in military exercises. The court held that Plaintiff was liable but could have been not liable if he had shown that the accident was utterly without his fault. d. Burden of Proof to the Plaintiff 1. Brown v. Kendall (Mass. 1850) Defendant attempts to separate his and plaintiffs dogs and accidentally strikes plaintiff in the eye. Court rules that if the injury was unavoidable and the conduct of the defendant was free from blame that he would not be liable. 2. Cohen v. Petty (D.C. Cir. 1933) Defendant is not liable because he had no way of knowing he would faint; he was not negligent. e. Return of Strict Liability 1. Spano v. Perini (NY 1969) Court held for plaintiff even though the damage done to his property was not caused by falling rocks from the defendants dynamite blasting. Strict liability for blasting is good policy and will not impede building. f. Intent 1. Purpose Intent The actor desires to bring about the occurrence. McGuire v. Almy (Mass. 1937) Lunatics are liable for the torts and intent is measured by the same standards as in sane people. 2. Substantial Certainty Intent The actor didnt desire the tort, but knew with substantial certainty that it would occur as a result of his action. Restatement 8A. Garratt v. Dailey (Wash. 1955) Five year old can be held liable for the battery if he knew with substantial certainty that his action would cause plaintiff to hit the ground. If he did, then he had the intent for battery. It would be difficult to recover punitive damages for substantial certainty intent, as compared with purpose intent. 3. Transferred Intent Applies when the tort and the resulting harm apply within the scope of the 5 torts (not emotional distress and conversion). If you intend to commit one tort and commit another, you are liable for that tort. Talmage v. Smith (Mich. 1894) Also if you intend to commit and 1 assault on one person and end up committing a battery on another, you are liable for the battery....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/18/2008 for the course LAW 1010 taught by Professor Cavanaugh during the Fall '00 term at St. Johns Duplicate.
- Fall '00
- The Land