Fall-Torts-Schechter - INTENTIONAL TORTS BATTERY 1 may assert a claim against for battery because(injury 2 To prove battery the must prove that(1

Fall-Torts-Schechter - INTENTIONAL TORTS BATTERY 1 may...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 8 pages.

INTENTIONAL TORTS BATTERY 1. π may assert a claim against Δ for battery, because _____ (injury). 2. To prove battery, the π must prove that Δ (1) acted (2) intended to act, (3) that act must cause a contact with the π’s person, and (4) the contact must have been harmful or offensive. The intent to harm is not necessary for a claim of battery. 3. Δ intentionally touched π’s person when _______ (facts), which resulted in harmful or offensive contact because ________ (facts). IF OFFENSIVE CONTACT o Δ could argue that ________ (facts) was not offensive contact because it would be considered typical contact by a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. o However, π would respond by saying this case is offensive because it is like ____ (consent to contact case, possibly White v. Muniz ), where ____ (caselaw facts). Here, ____ (facts similar to caselaw case). IF TRANSFERRED INTENT o Just as in Baska , where the court found there was battery even though π was not the intended target of the high school student’s punches, the π here can prove that Δ’s intention to batter_______(original target) fulfills intent to batter π by transferred intent. IF SINGLE INTENT STATE o Just as in Wagner , where the claim was brought in a single intent state, here the π can prove battery if he/she shows that Δ had the intent to touch or the intent for the contact to be harmful or offensive. IF DUAL INTENT STATE o If the π is bringing the claim in a state that has a dual intent requirement just like in Garratt , then π must prove that Δ not only intended to touch π when_____ (insert facts), but also intended for the contact to be harmful or offensive. IF EGGSHELL SKULL π o π could argue that this case is similar to the facts of Vosburg, where the Δ was liable all of π’s injuries, even the unforeseeable injuries of an “egg shell skull” π. o Here, Δ did not intent to cause harm, and π was an “eggshell” because π ____ (fact of eggshell), but the court still holds Δ liable for all damages even if he/she does not know of π’s particular condition. 4. A court will likely find that Δ did/did not commit battery against π, because Δ’s intentional acts caused a harmful or offensive contact with the π’s person. ASSAULT 1. π may assert a claim against Δ for assault. 2. To prove an assault π will have to show that (1) Δ acted, (2) intentionally placed π in imminent apprehension harmful or offensive contact, and (3) π reasonably believes in Δ’s present ability to inflict it. 3. Here, Δ placed π in imminent apprehension when Δ intentionally ____ (apprehension facts) and π believed in Δ’s apparent ability to carry out ____ (threat). 4. Δ may argue that his/her actions when _______(insert facts) do not demonstrate an imminent threat of harmful or offensive contact because______(words are not enough/there was no gesture or indication of the expected contact).
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture