One who intends a battery is liable for that battery when he unexpectedly hits

One who intends a battery is liable for that battery

This preview shows page 33 - 35 out of 52 pages.

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
Image of page 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 :
Image of page 34
Image of page 35

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture