Rule it doesnt matter that d did not intend for

This preview shows page 74 - 76 out of 101 pages.

D kicked P on the leg below the knee, ends up becoming inflamed badly.Rule: It doesn’t matter that D did not intend for specific harm to result.oAlso, it took place in classroom and not outside – “unlawful” The wrongdoer is liable for all injuries resulting directly from the wrongful act, whether they could or could nothave been foreseen by him.Cole v. Hibberd(p.613) – Intentional Nature of Act is all that is important D kicked P as a joke, it was intentional hit but not to harm.Rule: This is battery/assault because harm doesn’t matter, just intent of contact.Hibberd didn’t act with an intention to cause harm. It is the intentional nature of the contact with the plaintiff that controls the definition, not the intent to cause actual harm or injury.The essential character of the complaint is grounded in intentional tort of assault and batterReasonable minds can conclude that Hibberd intended to kick Cole. Hibberd’s contact would be considered offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity. It is irrelevant whether Hibberd intended to cause injury.German Mut. Ins. Co. v. Yeager(p.619) – no knowledge = negligenceP threw bomb behind him so no one would get hurt, but shrapnel hurts friends.Rule: conduct was an instance of carelessness, not intentional wrong.Transferred Intent 1. Between identity of victimsoinjury someone other than the person you set out to injury, still battery2. Between identity of intentional tortsoBattery Assault74
Shoot at someone, aware of doom, and miss.oFalse Imprisonment BatteryTry to imprison by slamming door, close it on their fingersoProperty BatteryTry to shoot dog, but hit the person insteadIn re White(p.621) – transferred intent White and Tipton fought, White brought gun, Tipton drove away, White shot at him but hit Davis instead.Rule: One who intends a battery is liable for that batter when he unexpectedly hits a stranger instead of the intended victim – not essential that the injury is the one that was originally intended.Shopkeeper’s privilege:Elements(1) a reasonable belief a person has stolen or is attempting to steal, (2) detention for a reasonable time; and (3) detention in a reasonable mannerShoplifters – detention to investigateThere must be reasonable groundsto suspect that the person detained actually took something;The detention must occur in the storeor in its immediate vicinity;Only reasonable, non-deadlyforce can be used to detain the person; and The investigation must be conducted in a reasonable mannerA person who reasonably believes another person has stolen, or is attempting to steal property, is privileged to detain that person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to investigate ownership of the property; However, shopkeeper’s privilege is limited in its application to false imprisonment claims arising from investigative detentions.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture