single/dual intent jurisdictions on torts battery

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
dudnaito
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:16 pm

single/dual intent jurisdictions on torts battery

Postby dudnaito » Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:31 am

just perusing my notes, and found this a tad bit more confusing than i remember. Single intent jurisdictions are those jurisdictions that require only one element of battery: intent to make contact while the dual intent requires intent to make contact and have it be harmful or offensive. Single intent is the majority rule, right?

What's the logic in that? I thought battery was determined by the ACT not the CONSEQUENCE, so what's the point/public policy of implementing a single intent req. for battery?

Omerta
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:47 pm

Re: single/dual intent jurisdictions on torts battery

Postby Omerta » Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:48 am

I found this super confusing at first. To use Getting to Maybe terms, the "classical" rule is single intent (the tort is complete with contact) and the modern rule requires the intent for harmful/offensive contact. The majority still just require contact.

My professor said that the Restatement is just worded poorly on this. It's not that the contact actually has to be known to be harmful or offensive, but that harmful or offensive contact occurs. You're right about the eggshell rule, as soon as the touch occurs, then P is responsible for any resulting damage.

I don't understand what you mean by the last sentence. Battery is determined by the act. He gave the example of the UVA law professor who was sued when he tapped a girl on the shoulder and she sued him for battery because it reminded her of being raped in Guatemala or something. There, the contact obviously wasn't meant to be harmful or offensive, but it was so the tort was complete.

User avatar
dudnaito
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:16 pm

Re: single/dual intent jurisdictions on torts battery

Postby dudnaito » Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:13 pm

thanks, that's what i thought. I was just confused about the last sentence, cause like the very cool example you gave, with single intent, crazy cases like that come about.

jusman26
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:13 pm

Re: single/dual intent jurisdictions on torts battery

Postby jusman26 » Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:58 pm

Actually I think it's the opposite. Studying for torts right now and this is what I have found:

Single Intent Rule: To be guilty of a battery, a person needs only to intend to make a contact that results in H/O touching of another person. This is the minority rule. It is slowly being adopted by other states and has won in the 3rd restatement.
Dual Intent Rule: In “dual intent,” the actor needs to both intend to make contact that results in H/O touching of another person AND appreciate the offensiveness or wrongfulness of her acts. This wins in White and is still the majority opinion, but is slowly losing ground.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SplitMyPants and 9 guests