A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage or assist a client in conduct

A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage or

This preview shows page 12 - 14 out of 119 pages.

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
Image of page 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.
Image of page 13
Image of page 14

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 119 pages?

  • Spring '08
  • Hogshead

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture