is this a battery?

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: is this a battery?

Postby kalvano » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:55 pm

nucky thompson wrote:could you use a better analogy to illustrate your point...

you're in control of the gun. you pull the trigger, which sets the bullet out of the gun. without pulling the trigger, the bullet does not go in direction of victim.

actor has no control over the cars. at all.


Control doesn't matter, at least not in the sense that you're trying to make it matter. Once you fire the bullet, it could be swayed by a gust of wind. Speaking the words to send the blind guy into traffic is the equivalent of pulling the trigger. The fact that you don't control the cars or the bullet after firing doesn't make it that much less likely that the victim is going to be in a world of hurt.

Again, you're over-complicating things. Torts is really simple. Don't add extra stuff to things.

User avatar
westinghouse60
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:27 am

Re: is this a battery?

Postby westinghouse60 » Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:25 pm

I.P. Daly wrote:You may have an argument that all of the elements of battery are met.

The harmful/offensive touching can be indirect, so it's sorta analogous to setting a "booby" trap. I remember reading a case where setting a trap in the woods constituted battery.

By intentionally directing the blind guy into traffic, you're causing the harmful contact. You're basically directing him into the trap...

In this situation, it'd probably be hard to prove intent unless the wrongdoer actually admitted that he intended the harmful or offensive contact.


Haven't read through the whole thread, but couldn't you infer intent through substantial certainty? Seems like the odds of a blind man getting hit in traffic are high enough

Edit: just read through thread and saw its already been talked about

User avatar
DocHawkeye
Posts: 640
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:22 am

Re: is this a battery?

Postby DocHawkeye » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:31 pm

nucky thompson wrote:could you use a better analogy to illustrate your point...

you're in control of the gun. you pull the trigger, which sets the bullet out of the gun. without pulling the trigger, the bullet does not go in direction of victim.

actor has no control over the cars. at all.


Must one control the instrumentality? (1) Knowing or substantially certain that (2) the actor's actions will cause (3) harmful or offensive contact (4) to the person of another or a third person and (5) such harmful or offesive contact occurs. Right? I don't see anything about controling the instrumentality of that contact.

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: is this a battery?

Postby kaiser » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:43 pm

Directing a blind man into traffic to cause him harm is absolutely a battery. In no way do you have to control the instrumentality that actually strikes the victim. Its almost entirely analogous to the booby trap hypo (directing someone to walk over a deep hole obscured by leaves), which clearly involved a battery

User avatar
DocHawkeye
Posts: 640
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:22 am

Re: is this a battery?

Postby DocHawkeye » Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:02 pm

Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971). Defendant placed spring guns to protect his real property. Plaintiff broke in an was injured.

kingofdara
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:49 am

Re: is this a battery?

Postby kingofdara » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:26 pm

I don't understand the problem here. You have knowledge to a substantial certainty that the blind man will be hit by a car when you direct him into oncoming traffic. It doesn't matter that it's just words or that you didn't form the intent that he be hit by a car. This is Garrett v. Dailey. You pull the chair out and even if you didn't intend for the old woman to break her coccyx, you have knowledge to a substantial certainly that her ass would hit the ground.

This reminds me of intentional trespass, like when you tell someone / trick them into entering a property that you know is owned by someone else. Even though you yourself are not physically trespassing, you are creating a liability by directing a trespass. I believe an example like that is in the Glannon E&E under trespass.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: is this a battery?

Postby kalvano » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:43 pm

People overcomplicate the fuck out of torts.

User avatar
DocHawkeye
Posts: 640
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:22 am

Re: is this a battery?

Postby DocHawkeye » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:43 pm

kingofdara wrote:break her coccyx


Tee he he...

User avatar
JCFindley
Posts: 1283
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 1:19 pm

Re: is this a battery?

Postby JCFindley » Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:03 pm

And this is a salt and battery.....

Image




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Eldon Tyrell, PrezRand, Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests