A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage or

A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer
knows is criminal or fraudulent
First party insurance
 Life insurance, medical insurance, fire insurance and collision
 Creates a form of loss spreading
 No Fault insurance
o Auto owners give up the right to sue certain kinds of harms, in exchange, company pays for
the damage
o Reduces the role of lawyers and claim adjusters
o Usually aid promptly
12

Torts 1 Outline
Chapter 2: Basic Intentional Torts
A. The Concept of Intent
 Focus on consequences
o Intent is a state of mind about consequences or results
o What is intended varies with the issue
 Purpose and Knowledge
o Purpose  defendants subjective wishes and exists whenever the defendants acts with the
purpose of causing the consequence which the law forbids
o Knowledge  knows with substantial certainty that the act in question will cause a prohibited
result
1. Intent to Injure
Lambertson v. United States
Page 43
Facts  A USDA meat inspector jumped on Plaintiffs back for a joke and ran into meat hooks and sustained
sever injuries to his face. Defendant did not intend to harm the plaintiff
Issue  Whether intent to harm is required for battery
Holding  The necessary intent for battery is intent to make contact, NOT to cause an injury
Misc

Could not sue the government because of a statute
 Have waived the immunity (US) in some situations (pg 44, 4 th para)  typically you are allowing for
property damage or personal injury caused by negligence or wrongful act or omission by any employee in
the course of employment
o Won’t allow claims out of assault or battery
 Tried to re-characterize from battery because he had no intent to harm
 Said that intent is not what you need
 Note 1: Degrees of Probability
o To some extent the difference between knowledge, recklessness, and negligence is a matter of
degree
 3 rd restatement  if the actor knows that the consequences are certain or substantially
certain, to result from his act, and still goes ahead, he is treated by the law as if he had in
fact desired to produce the result. As the probability that the consequences will follow
decreases, and becomes less than substantial certainty, the actors conduct loses the
character of intent, and becomes mere recklessness… as the probability decreases
further, and amounts only to a risk that the result will follow, it becomes ordinary
negligence
 Note 2: Motive
o Individuals motive is not dispositive of whether a particular result was intended
o Ruple v. Brooks  no matter what defendants specific motivation may have been, such motivation
does not negate the fact that the act was done intentionally. In fact, defendants admitted anger
when making the telephone calls greatly strengthens a finding of intent to cause emotional harm.