Torts Intentional Torts Recklessness exists where a person knows that the act

Torts intentional torts recklessness exists where a

This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 6 pages.

Torts, Intentional TortsRecklessness exists where a person knows that the act is harmful but fails to realize that it will produce the extreme harm which it did produce. It is in this respect that recklessness and intentional [**22]conduct differ in degree.In the case at bar the defendant Clark admittedly acted impulsively and in the heat of anger, and even though it could be said from the admitted facts that he intended the act,it could also be said that he did not intend to inflict serious injury which resulted from theblow which he struck.In ruling that recklessness is the appropriate standard and that assault and battery is not the exclusive one, we are saying that these two liability concepts are not necessarilyopposed one to the other. Rather, recklessness under § 500 of the Restatementmight be regarded, for the purpose of analysis at least, a lesser included act.[*525]Assault and battery, having originated in a common law writ, is narrower than recklessness in its scope. Two definitions enter it. The assault is an attempt coupled with the present ability to commit a violent harm against another. Battery is the
Background image
unprivileged or unlawful touching of another. Assault and battery then call for an intent, as does recklessness. But in recklessness the intent is to do the act, but without an intent to cause the harm. It is enough if the actor knows that there [**23]is a strong probability that harm will result. Thus, the definition fits perfectly the fact situation here. Surely, then, no reason exists to compel appellant to employ the assault and battery standard which does not comfortably apply fully in preference to the standard which meets this fact situation.Relevance, Relevant Evidence"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of anyfact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.Admissibility, Character EvidenceRule 404deals with character evidence and other crimes. That which deals with character states as follows:(a) Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:(1) Character of accused. Evidence of a pertinent trait of his character offered by [**26]an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same;(2) Character of victim. Evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor;(3) Character of witness. Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in Rules 607, 608, and 609.Conduct Evidence, Prior Acts, Crimes and WrongsSubsection (b) of Rule 404deals with other wrongs or acts and states the traditional rule that:(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
Background image
Image of page 6

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 6 pages?

  • Spring '18
  • Caleb Sweazey
  • Supreme Court of the United States, United States district court, Trial court, United States federal courts, interception. Clark

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture