Missing: Neg – elements of cause of action, neg formula, stndrd of care, rules oflaw, violation of stat., Res Ispa Loquiter, Causation in fact – sine qua non, proof ofcausation, concurrent causes, determining which party Prox or Legal Cause –undforeseeable, intervening causes, public policy, shifting respI.Intentional TortsA.Intent-RULE: either purpose or "knowledge with substantial certainty," that performing an act will leadto invasion of bodily harm.-Purposeto cause the act:Conduct intended (even if result not)OR-Knowledgewith Substantial Certaintythat action would produce a tortious result (Garratt v Dailey5y.o. chair pull)oKnowledge Test– just must know the person’s physical integrity would be invaded, not theactual harm will occuroSubjective– what D thought, not what they should’ve thoughtoConsequences need not be substantially certain, just the act (thin skull, glass jaw liability too)oSubstantial Certainty:D knows that a harmful or offensive contact is “substantially certain” tooccur, the fact that D doesn’t desire that contact is irrelevantsubjective test-Intent to harm irrelevant-Consequences need not be intentional or substant. certain –just the actoLiable for damages caused by mistakesand misunderstanding of facts (Rason v Kitner, shot dog;hugging stranger in store—we allocate the risk of mistake to the actor)oVolitional control is sufficient;mentally incompetent personsliable just like normal people(Mcquire v Almy,caretaker injured)oChildrenare responsible for intentional torts (age may affect their knowledge of act)-Doctrine of transferred intentoThe tort attempted and the tort achieved must be one of the 5 within the original writ of trespass(Batter, Assault, False Imprisonment, Trespass to Land, & Trespass to Chattel)oOne supplies intent for the others as welloWhen the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurtinstead, the perpetrator is still held responsible.
