real quick ? about intentional torts liability

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
dakatz
Posts: 2460
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:19 pm

Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability

Postby dakatz » Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:31 pm

GoodToBeTheKing wrote:
dudnaito wrote:if A batters B, and B goes to hospital, and freak fire happens, then A is not liable for B's fire-incurred injuries, and the hospital is not held negligible either, so does that mean that B cannot recover at all even though A's action is a clear example of cause in fact under "but-for" test... i know it doesn't pass proximate cause, but there seems to be an issue of justice here, or am i just soft?



if A batters B he is liable for all of the damages that occurred from that battery, even those that are unforeseen. I am not sure why you are even bringing in the but-for test, proximate cause, etc. because this is not a negligence case.


Exactly. I have no idea why people are talking about reasonable foreseeability. Think about the eggshell skull rule. The whole point is that when you commit an intentional tort, you are held liable even for the unforeseeable circumstances. The liability will extend much further than the typical prox. cause analysis you do for negligence (i.e. scope of the risk, foreseeability, etc). The culpability of the act will greatly affect how far the liability extends.

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

Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability

Postby dudnaito » Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:16 pm

GoodToBeTheKing wrote:
dudnaito wrote:if A batters B, and B goes to hospital, and freak fire happens, then A is not liable for B's fire-incurred injuries, and the hospital is not held negligible either, so does that mean that B cannot recover at all even though A's action is a clear example of cause in fact under "but-for" test... i know it doesn't pass proximate cause, but there seems to be an issue of justice here, or am i just soft?



if A batters B he is liable for all of the damages that occurred from that battery, even those that are unforeseen. I am not sure why you are even bringing in the but-for test, proximate cause, etc. because this is not a negligence case.


sorry, my post 5 minutes prior to this one had 4 hypos, 2 for battery, and the other 2 where the cause was negligence, so i got kinda confused.

Melkaba
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:31 pm

Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability

Postby Melkaba » Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:34 pm

GoodToBeTheKing wrote:if A batters B he is liable for all of the damages that occurred from that battery, even those that are unforeseen. I am not sure why you are even bringing in the but-for test, proximate cause, etc. because this is not a negligence case.


After reading through this topic, I was also pretty confused where the negligence elements were come into at. At first I just chalked it up to a combination of sleep deprivation and a migraine headache.

But in all seriousness, GoodToBeTheKing is right. If the battery victim was some kind of freak of nature and his limbs exploded or something to that effect because of the battery, Thin Skull/Eggshell Rule kicks in because the manner the harm comes about from the intention tort doesn't matter as long as it actually comes from the intentional tort. The fire at the hospital is a different subject matter entirely just as the presence of medical malpractice is something different between the decedent and the doctor (and/or the hospital through vicarious liability).

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11726
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability

Postby kalvano » Fri Dec 03, 2010 12:23 am

GoodToBeTheKing wrote:
dudnaito wrote:if A batters B, and B goes to hospital, and freak fire happens, then A is not liable for B's fire-incurred injuries, and the hospital is not held negligible either, so does that mean that B cannot recover at all even though A's action is a clear example of cause in fact under "but-for" test... i know it doesn't pass proximate cause, but there seems to be an issue of justice here, or am i just soft?



if A batters B he is liable for all of the damages that occurred from that battery, even those that are unforeseen. I am not sure why you are even bringing in the but-for test, proximate cause, etc. because this is not a negligence case.



I think he was asking more about the fire. The fire would be a different factor altogether.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability

Postby romothesavior » Fri Dec 03, 2010 12:26 am

How is this even a debate? This is seriously as simple as it gets. (not directing this at you OP)

You've got a battery. The fire was completely unforeseeable to the tortfeasor. No way they are liable.

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

Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability

Postby dudnaito » Fri Dec 03, 2010 4:42 am

romothesavior wrote:How is this even a debate? This is seriously as simple as it gets. (not directing this at you OP)

You've got a battery. The fire was completely unforeseeable to the tortfeasor. No way they are liable.


there we have it. I knew i wrote this down somewhere in my outline, but figured posting it on TLS was a faster way to get a response... ended up confusing me quite a bit more although i admit my lack of sleep contributed to the confusion by combining tests for negligence and intentional torts together. This was what i had in my outline:

Intentional tortfeasers are liable for all the consequences of their torts (related to transferred intent) except in those rare instances where resulting further damages were in no way shape or form caused by the torts action.

a. Example: Injured by battery, P goes to hospital… freak hospital fire, 3rd degree burns. D not liable for P’s burn injuries. Most courts will weigh factors in awarding damages such as the intention to cause harm, degree of moral wrong, seriousness of harm, etc… instead of the blanket statement that tortfeaser is liable for ALL resulting injuries. Practicality pwnage.

I think I got this from an E&E... I think.

User avatar
GoodToBeTheKing
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:34 pm

Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability

Postby GoodToBeTheKing » Fri Dec 03, 2010 12:23 pm

dudnaito wrote:
romothesavior wrote:How is this even a debate? This is seriously as simple as it gets. (not directing this at you OP)

You've got a battery. The fire was completely unforeseeable to the tortfeasor. No way they are liable.


there we have it. I knew i wrote this down somewhere in my outline, but figured posting it on TLS was a faster way to get a response... ended up confusing me quite a bit more although i admit my lack of sleep contributed to the confusion by combining tests for negligence and intentional torts together. This was what i had in my outline:

Intentional tortfeasers are liable for all the consequences of their torts (related to transferred intent) except in those rare instances where resulting further damages were in no way shape or form caused by the torts action.

a. Example: Injured by battery, P goes to hospital… freak hospital fire, 3rd degree burns. D not liable for P’s burn injuries. Most courts will weigh factors in awarding damages such as the intention to cause harm, degree of moral wrong, seriousness of harm, etc… instead of the blanket statement that tortfeaser is liable for ALL resulting injuries. Practicality pwnage.

I think I got this from an E&E... I think.



The EE is not always right. Not to say that this is wrong but just be wary of what you get from that book. Multiple times I have argued with the answers in the EE and asked my prof who said the book isn't right.

However, I am sticking to my argument that the D actor is liable for all resultant injuries. After all, he is the one that sent P to the hospital.

This could also be one of those FORKS in the road, since you did say "most" courts. I think it is good to recognize both arguments, argue both sides, and then move on in your analysis.

Melkaba
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:31 pm

Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability

Postby Melkaba » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:34 pm

Since I'm not going to make a new topic for this question and since it is an intentional torts question, I'll hijack this thread.


While it's a no-go if you're trying to sue the US for an intentional tort via vicarious liability due to the Federal Tort Claims Act, can you sue some state governments/local governments/municipalities for the intentional tort of an employee or, like the US, it's only restricted to negligence?

User avatar
GoodToBeTheKing
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:34 pm

Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability

Postby GoodToBeTheKing » Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:57 am

Melkaba wrote:Since I'm not going to make a new topic for this question and since it is an intentional torts question, I'll hijack this thread.


While it's a no-go if you're trying to sue the US for an intentional tort via vicarious liability due to the Federal Tort Claims Act, can you sue some state governments/local governments/municipalities for the intentional tort of an employee or, like the US, it's only restricted to negligence?



I highly doubt this kind of issue would be on an issue spotter.

User avatar
ggocat
Posts: 1663
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:51 pm

Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability

Postby ggocat » Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:42 am

Melkaba wrote:Since I'm not going to make a new topic for this question and since it is an intentional torts question, I'll hijack this thread.


While it's a no-go if you're trying to sue the US for an intentional tort via vicarious liability due to the Federal Tort Claims Act, can you sue some state governments/local governments/municipalities for the intentional tort of an employee or, like the US, it's only restricted to negligence?

Let me go research 50 states' laws. BRB.

Melkaba
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:31 pm

Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability

Postby Melkaba » Sat Dec 04, 2010 1:59 pm

GoodToBeTheKing wrote:I highly doubt this kind of issue would be on an issue spotter.


Eh... One of our practice exams did include an issue of vicarious liability to the state through a government worker. Of course, it was negligence there, so there wasn't really an issue. But if he did an intentional tort as well.. you know the rest.

ggocat wrote:Let me go research 50 states' laws. BRB.


Good thing, if it at least a minority of states do it (in which I'm giving the cut-off at 2 states), then it's fair game to use on the final. Of course, I kinda forgot I even posted this question until this morning and I could have used that half-a-day to google search it somewhere. But forget torts, I'm in CONTRACT MODE.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability

Postby romothesavior » Sat Dec 04, 2010 2:02 pm

GoodToBeTheKing wrote:
Melkaba wrote:Since I'm not going to make a new topic for this question and since it is an intentional torts question, I'll hijack this thread.


While it's a no-go if you're trying to sue the US for an intentional tort via vicarious liability due to the Federal Tort Claims Act, can you sue some state governments/local governments/municipalities for the intentional tort of an employee or, like the US, it's only restricted to negligence?



I highly doubt this kind of issue would be on an issue spotter.

Actually, it very well could be. I am in Melkaba's torts class, and it isn't a stupid question at all.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11726
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability

Postby kalvano » Sat Dec 04, 2010 2:08 pm

Melkaba wrote:Since I'm not going to make a new topic for this question and since it is an intentional torts question, I'll hijack this thread.


While it's a no-go if you're trying to sue the US for an intentional tort via vicarious liability due to the Federal Tort Claims Act, can you sue some state governments/local governments/municipalities for the intentional tort of an employee or, like the US, it's only restricted to negligence?



We spent about 3 minutes on it, but I believe most states cannot be sued for intentional torts. It was a Utah case where some superpowered angry Rain Man under government supervision and guard for the day was in a supermarket and attacked a lady.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability

Postby romothesavior » Sat Dec 04, 2010 2:16 pm

Mel, I'd say Kal is probably right. But of course, on our exam, you don't have to be conclusive on any of the issues. If it comes up, just say,

"A would also sue the state for vicarious liability of B's tort. The state will counter that they are not liable for intentional torts of state employees."

I would just dispense of it quickly, get your point, and move on.

User avatar
ggocat
Posts: 1663
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:51 pm

Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability

Postby ggocat » Sat Dec 04, 2010 3:30 pm

I was joking because the general rule is that every state has immunity from suit under the common law unless waived by the state's constitution or statute. See generally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_ ... n_immunity.

But it is entirely possible for a state to authorize suits against it for the intentional torts of its employees. In order to determine the issue for any given state, you'd have to research state law.

I haven't looked at case law, but I think Texas, for example, allows vicarious liability against the state for an employee's intentional tort. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code S 101.021 ("A governmental unit in the state is liable for: (1) property damage, personal injury, and death proximately caused by the wrongful act or omission or the negligence of an employee acting within his scope of employment . . . ."). Plain meaning of the statute would allow vicarious liability for either (1) wrongful acts or omissions, which should include intentional torts, or (2) negligence.

Of course, you will have the normal problem of actually proving that the intentional tort was within the scope of employment and that some other type of common law limited immunity doesn't apply.

Melkaba
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:31 pm

Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability

Postby Melkaba » Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:44 pm

Good clarifications from both you guys. EDIT: Three, sorry.

Also, to Romo, good luck on your finals. (I've been in property/torts mood for the past week and a half and I'm just now getting around to Contracts).

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability

Postby romothesavior » Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:11 pm

Melkaba wrote:Good clarifications from both you guys. EDIT: Three, sorry.

Also, to Romo, good luck on your finals. (I've been in property/torts mood for the past week and a half and I'm just now getting around to Contracts).

Same to you. Trust me... I'm in the same boat. I am done with my torts outline, 95% done with property, and Ks... lol. I think I'm through offer and acceptance?

The problem is that I have zero motivation for Ks. I am making torts flashcards right now, and I think it is because I am subconsciously looking for other things to do besides Ks.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cdotson2 and 9 guests