September 5th Case Briefs

September 5th Case Briefs - September 5, 2008 Intentional...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
September 5, 2008 Intentional Interference with Person or Property 1. Intent: The state of mind accompanying an act, especially a forbidden act. While motive is the inducement to do some act, intent is the mental resolution or determination to do it. When the intent to do an act that violates law exists, motive becomes immaterial. Garratt v. Dailey Supreme Court of Washington 1955 Law Facts Reasoning Rule for minors who commit intentional torts: A minor who has committed a forcible tort can be liable just like anyone else Battery: Intent to Contact - D did the act because he wanted to cause contact - D did the act knowing that the contact was substantially certain to occur - Its not enough that the act itself is intentional if D doesn’t have the intent in either the above points - And it’s not enough that the act A five year old kid (D) was visiting an elderly, arthritic lady (P). P was about to sit down in a lawn chair, but D moved it and sat in it himself. P didn’t know this, and started to sit down where the chair had been. D tried to move it back, but he was too late. P fell and broke her hip. - D was 5 years and 9 months - The trial court found D did not move the chair on purpose to make D fall… D was not liable - D moved the chair on purpose - It is not important how old D was- he could be liable if all the elements of battery were proved - The trial court was wrong not to think about the second way of proving intent, so the supreme court remanded so that the trial court could consider it. On remand, the trial court looked at the time sequence and decided that D did know with substantial certainty that P would fall, so D was liable. - just moving the chair on purpose is not enough to prove intent- P has to prove that D did it on purpose and with the right intent
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
itself is intentional if D only knows or should know that the act causes a very grave risk that the contact will occur- he has to know that there’s substantial certainty that the contact will occur Contact Body-to Body Touch something intimately connected to a person Harmful or Offensive - P fell to the ground - P fractured her hip - P’s body hitting the ground proved this element (b/w body and ground) - A broken hip is harmful because broken bones mean damage, so this element was met Issue: Is D liable for P’s fall? What is necessary for intent? Procedure: A judgement against D, in amount of $11,000. P appeals from judgement dismissing the action and asks for the entry of a judgement in that amount or a new trial. Holding: Remand for clarification P might argue: D moved the chair on purpose with the intention that she fall and harm herself. D might argue: He had moved the chair previously and was moving the chair in order to break P’s fall Conclusions: To have an intent in an intentional tort one must be: o Conscious o they must want to do a physical act o desire to do an act in order to bring about a consequence o know that the action to a substantial certainty that something will happen, bring about a
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 15

September 5th Case Briefs - September 5, 2008 Intentional...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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