kopper wrote:joobacca wrote:kalvano wrote:APHill wrote:Good luck on your exams!!! Tell your classmates I said they are some lucky bastards.
See edit above. He specifically said "upon seeing the spider, he jumped back at the sight of it", not "upon reaching in and rummaging through the desk."
again, i have to warn you all that it's been a year and i hated torts.
but the touching thing. i think you can set into motion some shit that leads to contact. it's like hitting a black guy's tray because you're a racist. or putting poison in a coffee for A to drink. maybe B ends up drinking it.
C sees the spider here. but there is H/O contact in the fall/injury. would it not be like seeing an old lady going sit down and yanking the chair? there's no "contact" in the sense of anything from the yanker to the old lady. but there's substantial certainty that the yanking will cause a H/O contact. perhaps putting a big ass spider in a certain location, and the surroundings of that location would be enough to establish sub cert to cause H/O contact. i'm just thinking out loud here.. i'm not saying this is a battery here, but to close it out without trying to explore bullshit arguments might cost you points.
I agree this is a transfer of intent case and I don't know that it qualifies as a battery however I think joobacca is on the right path. I was thinking of the same example of the kid removing the chair and the old lady falling down. Its not a definite case but as he warns there could be an argument made and likely a good one for battery. I would also question that "implied consent" is transferrable. If we were to remove C and the same thing happened but happened to B I think there is a case or argument for implied consent. However, I don't think there is any implied consent with C and I don't believe that it transfers as does intent.
In that case, Garratt v. Dailey, the defendant was substantially certain the contact was going to result. In this case, you would have to argue for substantial certainty as well. You can argue that A was substantially certain B would see the fake spider, not necessarily come into contact with it. But even if he was certain of that, A most likely could not have been substantially certain C was going to come into contact with the fake spider.
I just think arguing transferred intent is a rather weak argument in this scenario. Not to mention, there was no direct or indirect contact and the prior history of pranks between A and B.