100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 60 pages.
INTENTIONAL TORTSGarratt 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:ointentional infliction of a contact that is harmful or offensive to a reasonable person.op 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.oRISK 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?oImportance of case: the lawyer for the plaintiff risks turning the intent into negligencePicard v. Barry Pontiac--Buick, Inc.pg 891oFacts: 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.oIssue: Do we encompass, within battery, touching an object intimately connected to the person? YESoReasoning: 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.oDamages: punitive damages because there was no proven malice or bad faith.**Batteryointentionalocontactoharmful of offensive to reasonable persono[damages are not necessary]oconsent is a DEFENSE to battery**Assaultophysical act toward anoindividual that ellicits apprehension (in a reasonable person)oof imminent bodily harm***Nominal Damages may be appropriate for battery cases in which no harm/damages are done.Wishnatsky v. HueyoFacts: 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 batteryoIssues: in this case there was a question of whether his action was grossly unwarranted by social standardsothis is a case of offensive battery (not harmful battery)oReasoning 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"oBattery:oHarmful?