SwampRat88 wrote:Just did torts exam. Pretty sure I ***** fucked the intentional torts fact pattern. Man and women were fighting, the man pulled out a gun, fired it past her. The bullet went pretty far, ricocheted off another building, and hit a man's car driving on the highway. Stupidly I went into transferred intent for assault and battery (having the guy in the car sue the man in the house). The fact pattern, I believe, did not give any indication the man in the car traced the bullet back to the man in the house.
Am I right that I completely missed Res Ipsa, and that there is no realistic way the man with the gun would be liable for the transferred intent for assault and battery?
he had purpose/kwsc that he would shoot the person, but he missed. doesn't matter that he didn't have purpose/kwsc w/r/t to the other guy, it transfers.
then you get into negligence discussion
this is clearly negligence on the guy who fired the bullet, but there might not be legal causation here.
if you are going to do a polemis test, this is probably a direct result b/c it followed inevitably from the fact that a bullet was fired and someone was harmed.
it gets interesting under a palsgraf analysis. how large is the zone of danger of firing a bullet and is it affect by physical constructions? I'd probably the guy in the car was outside the zone of danger simply because the zone of danger is a bullet traveling in a straight line, but it is arguable.
under just a straight up foreseeability test, the harm that occurred was the type that would be expected, dude got shot. though are there superseding causes? doesn't look like temporal or human action problems (maybe the dude driving), but there is a spatial problem here that might be superseding.
still, I think this is risk still "unfolding in the bosom" of time, the situtation has not stabilized, that bullet is still wizzing through the air and the type of harm that happens is what one might expect.
damage is easy and so is but for. this is a beautiful legal cause question!