Naked Dude wrote:introversional wrote:chimp wrote:Naked Dude wrote:How can you categorically state that there is no intent? Maybe the guy is really pissed off and decides he wants to hit someone.
Because he was dancing, not fighting...
We're getting off point here... The dancing guy wanted to hit the air above his head, that's all. The drunken heathen that ran into the dancer's first with his head is the potential tortfeasor here. If we show fault/negligence (say he was on E along with his bottle of jager) and stumbled into the innocent dancer thereby hurting dancer's first with his sweaty head... we have a case, no?
but what about the whole substantial certainty bit? the nightclub location covers that i guess. whatever man i'm giving legal advice or nothing, feel free to correct me and all. enjoy it if you must, no need to be hostile.
Cmon man, there is no knowledge of a substantial certainty that he would hit someone. Knowledge of a substantial certainty is something like putting on a blindfold and firing a gun into a crowd. Sure, you might hope to the high heavens that you don't hit anyone, but you know with a substantial certainty that you will. Now compare that to the guy pumping his fist in a club. See how it doesn't equate?