Torts - Case Chart.xlsx - Case Name Type of Tort Tort Element Topic Specific Ruling Vosberg v Putney P and D were students One day D lightly kicked P on

Torts - Case Chart.xlsx - Case Name Type of Tort Tort...

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

Case Name Rule Facts Type of Tort Tort Element Topic Specific Ruling Vosberg v. Putney Intentional Tort General Intent Garrat v. Dailey Intentional Tort General Intent Mohr v. Williams Intentional Tort Defenses Consent Kennedy v. Parrott Intentional Tort Defenses Consent Intentional Tort Defenses Consent Hudson v. Craft Intentional Tort Defenses Consent Intentional Tort Defenses Consent In an action to recover for assault and battery, the plaintiff must show that either the intent behind the defendant’s actions is unlawful or the defendant’s conduct itself is unlawful. P and D were students. One day, D lightly kicked P on the leg. P later felt extreme pain in the area of the kick which worsed over the next few days. P had a prior wound that was healing. During surgery, doctor discovered leg was in a diseased state. D's kick activated the bacteria that caused the disease. Intent to do harm is not required for liability for assault and battery. D's action of kicking P in a school room is unlawful and his is liable for assault and battery. A minor may be held liable for the tort of battery if she acted intentionally, with knowledge to a substantial certainty that her actions would cause a harmful or offensive contact to another person. D (a 5 year old boy) pulled a chair out from under P while she was sitting down. P fell, broke her hip. D is liable because he intended to act with substantial certainty of the consequences. Battery: "intentional infliction of a harmful bodily contact upon another" An absence of evil intent or negligence on the part of a defendant does not operate as a defense to the civil tort of assault and battery. D (an ear doctor) had consent from P to operate on her right ear. When he began the procedure, he realized that the left ear was in much worse condition, and so operated on her left ear instead. The operation was performed skillfully and successfully. P alleged that the opeartion caused her serious injury. It doesn't matter that Mohr consented to the original operation; she did not consent to surgery on her left ear. No consent? Assume the touching was unauthorized and unlawful. A surgeon will not be liable for battery or trespass on the body for extending the scope of the operation during surgery, where he believes the extension is necessary based on his best judgment and skill, without first obtaining the patient’s consent. A patient was undergoing an appendectomy when her doctor noticed cysts on her ovary. He punctured them but it cut a blood vessel and she developed a painful condition in her leg. Doctors can operate on surrounding areas if in “his sound professional judgment, determines” that that is the best decision to make and the patient is unable to consent nor is there anyone there to consent for the plaintiff.
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 8 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture