Alexis Notes Torts

Alexis Notes Torts - INTENTIONAL TORTS Garratt v. Dailey...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Garratt v. Dailey INTENT--jury deemed that is was difficult to prove intent 'MENS REA?'-- if you get below substantial certainty you leave intentional torts and enter the realm of negligence (children cannot be tried for negligence). it is necessary to notice that if you introduce the notion of 'substantial certainty' you risk blurring the line between intentional torts and negligence. elements of battery: o intentional infliction of a contact that is harmful or offensive to a reasonable person. o p argues that intent to harm is not necessary as long as he intended to move the chair. Vosburg v. Putney established that intention of harm is not nec. only intent of action that causes harm. o RISK determines battery, ex. beer brewer that buys a machine that deposits glass in 1: 1000 bottles of beer. is this risk large enough to claim battery or is it just being negligent? o Importance of case : the lawyer for the plaintiff risks turning the intent into negligence Picard v. Barry Pontiac--Buick, Inc. pg 891 o Facts : p took a photo of rep. from dealer, and she says he lunged at her and he said that he merely walked over and put his index finger on the camera. o Issue : Do we encompass, within battery, touching an object intimately connected to the person? YES o Reasoning: 1) assault : apprehension was apparent in the photo where the defendant was pointing his finger at her, and there for she had a rational fear of bodily harm, and so assault was proven. 2) battery: offensive contact with an object intimately attached or identified with a person's body is battery because it OFFENDS HER PERSONAL DIGNITY, and the defendant failed to prove his actions were accidental or involuntary. o Damages: punitive damages because there was no proven malice or bad faith. **Battery o intentional o contact o harmful of offensive to reasonable person o [damages are not necessary] o consent is a DEFENSE to battery **Assault o physical act toward an o individual that ellicits apprehension (in a reasonable person) o of imminent bodily harm *** Nominal Damages may be appropriate for battery cases in which no harm/damages are done. Wishnatsky v. Huey o Facts: P barged into lawyer's office holding some papers, Huey, D was in a meeting with Crary and forcefully shut door on P which forcibly pushed him into the hallway, he also used abusive and rude language, P sought damages for battery o Issues: in this case there was a question of whether his action was grossly unwarranted by social standards o this is a case of offensive battery (not harmful battery) o Reasoning D was not harmed , bodily contact was "momentary indirect, incidental. P was "unduly sensitive as to his sense of personal dignity" side note: Wishnatsky include in his affidavit that he was a born-again christian who is very sensitive to the "demonic" o Battery: o Harmful? o
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/05/2008 for the course LAW torts taught by Professor Wendel during the Fall '06 term at Cornell.

Page1 / 60

Alexis Notes Torts - INTENTIONAL TORTS Garratt v. Dailey...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

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