One who intends a battery is liable for that battery when he unexpectedly hits a stranger instead of the intended
victim
TRANSFERRED INTENT: BATTERY & ASSAULT
33
o
CT didn’t want to discharge tort liab b/c P suffered tort
o
Fed Court uses doctrine of Transferred Intent
I
Same victim, Diff intent Tort
intended assault of P
got battery of P (Nelson v.
Caroll)
II.
Diff victim, Same intent.Tort
Intended Battery to A
Battery to B (In Re White)
III
Diff Victim, Diff Intent. Tort
Intended Assault to A
Battery to B (In Re White)
IV.
From Things to Persons
Intent to harm chattel
battery to P
I.
S.V, DT:
Nelson v. Caroll:
D about to strike P with gun. Gun accidentally fired at P. D just wanted to “scare” P. BUT “Intent
element may b supplied by intent element of assault”
II.
DV, ST: Victims of certain acts that were intended to injure someone else may sue even though they were not among
persons whom D intended to injure (
Talmage v Smith)
D threw a stick at some boys, missed and hit P. Trial judge instructed
jury that if it found D’s action involved excessive rather than reasonable force, it should hold D liable regardless of whether he
intended to hit P or the other boys.
III.
DV, DT: ***White intended to engage in conduct amounting to assault of Tipton, and ended up battering Davis
IV.
Prop
Person:
a.
Corn v. Shepard:
D argued that he was shooting at a dog and accidently hit P. Noting that shooting a domestic
animal was unlawful and that firing a gun was inherently dangerous, the court concluded that “where a
person intentionally discharges a firearm for a wrongful purpose and another is hit, he is liable for the
injuries inflicted, although he did not intend to hit the other or even know that he was in range.”
b.
Lynn v. Burnette:
She meant to shoot the car but accidently shot P. You cannot transfer trespass to chattel to
the tort of battery.
c.
Harmful contact to property, land, chattel? Chattel
Trespass to chattel!
d.
Cant have offensive contact to property
NOTE: can have TI between combo of Battery Assault and FI BUT NOT between B,A,FI AND IIED. (i.e: try assault and end
up with IIED? Not really TI
°
FOR TRESPASS TO CHATTEL: only need
°
1. “wrongful touching of land” i.e not your land & you touched w/out consent
°
2. Need something dmged
1.
CONSENT:
P cant prevail on tort claim b/c P agreed, under appropriate conditions, to endure bodily contact, or an
apprehension of contact, or a confinement, that would otherwise b tortious (like assump of risk in neg)
a.
EXPRESSLY:
thru written or spoken stment
i.
Authorization for medical procedure defeats battery liability for procedure itself
ii.
Scope of consent often the central question – which touching’s P consented to?
b.
IMPLICITLY:
through conduct
i.
P’s consent inferred from circumstances: Voluntary participation in sports
a.
NO consent:
Koffman v. Garnett:
P consented to b tackled by kids, not coach.
ii.
Entering crowds and buses- consent to at least some jostling and other contacts
iii.
Consider
relationship of parties
c.
IF D
ACTUALLY & REASONBLY believed that P consented
to contact
:
