Dual Intent Jurisdictions-- Torts

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
lawschoolproblems86
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:57 pm

Dual Intent Jurisdictions-- Torts

Postby lawschoolproblems86 » Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:10 pm

I understand that two of the elements of a battery are intent to act, and that it be harmful or offensive. But I don't really understand the point of Dual Intent Jurisdictions. If Dual intent Jursidictions require that the actor intended to act AND appreciated the harmful/offensiveness, how does that differ from the standard single intent jurisdiction? I'm having some trouble wrapping my mind around this, since the harmful/offensive requirement is already one of the elements of battery. Thanks

jdwishes
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:00 pm

Re: Dual Intent Jurisdictions-- Torts

Postby jdwishes » Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:50 pm

we never discussed "dual intent jurisdictions" in our studies, but your question makes me wonder if you mean the court requires that the intent meet both/dual requirments:

subjective intent: the actor intended the act/ desired a purpose (Vosburg desired to make contact with his classmate's shin - it's why he reached his leg across the aisle - he desired a purpose)
and
constructive/objective intent: the actor had knowledge with a substantial certainty that the act would occur (Garratt v. Dailey - court said the little boy knew with substantial certainty that the woman was in the process of sitting down when he moved the chair. little boy didn't desire to harm her per se, but did know that moving the chair while someone was about to sit down would cause a harmful or offensive contact)

does that possibly answer "dual intent"??

lawschoolproblems86 wrote:I understand that two of the elements of a battery are intent to act, and that it be harmful or offensive. But I don't really understand the point of Dual Intent Jurisdictions. If Dual intent Jursidictions require that the actor intended to act AND appreciated the harmful/offensiveness, how does that differ from the standard single intent jurisdiction? I'm having some trouble wrapping my mind around this, since the harmful/offensive requirement is already one of the elements of battery. Thanks

lawschoolproblems86
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:57 pm

Re: Dual Intent Jurisdictions-- Torts

Postby lawschoolproblems86 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:40 pm

Hmm, not really. Thanks, though.

Your response is basically what it sounds like it should be, but I doubt that is what is meant by the dual intent jurisdiction. From what I understand it is more about someone intending the action AND knowing it was harmful. And that's what confuses me. Isn't that exactly what intent is, anyway? Ugh.

dawrp
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:23 pm

Re: Dual Intent Jurisdictions-- Torts

Postby dawrp » Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:46 pm

Harry and Sally are on a date. Sally slips on some ice, and Harry bends down to help her up. Sally tells him not to touch her, but he helps her up anyway.

Single intent jurisdiction: battery

Dual intent jurisdiction: no battery.

I think that's what you're getting at...

User avatar
cinephile
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:50 pm

Re: Dual Intent Jurisdictions-- Torts

Postby cinephile » Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:52 pm

dawrp wrote:Harry and Sally are on a date. Sally slips on some ice, and Harry bends down to help her up. Sally tells him not to touch her, but he helps her up anyway.

Single intent jurisdiction: battery

Dual intent jurisdiction: no battery.

I think that's what you're getting at...


There's still battery. He knew it was an offensive touching.

lawschoolproblems86
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:57 pm

Re: Dual Intent Jurisdictions-- Torts

Postby lawschoolproblems86 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:56 pm

But what exactly would cause someone to escape liability in a dual intent jurisdiction that they would otherwise be liable for under a single intent jurisdiction? That's what I'm fuzzy on? Is it just having knowledge that it will be harmful/offensive?

dawrp
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:23 pm

Re: Dual Intent Jurisdictions-- Torts

Postby dawrp » Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:58 pm

I suppose. I tried to make the hypo arguable - Harry might not have really considered that it would be offensive, so maybe he didn't know with substantial certainty that it would be offensive.

User avatar
bostonlawchick
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:09 am

Re: Dual Intent Jurisdictions-- Torts

Postby bostonlawchick » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:00 pm

In my notes, I have

single intent- D only needs to intend the contact that results in harm or offense

dual intent- D must intend the contact AND that the contact be harmful or offensive

A guy randomly kisses a woman he just met. Obviously he did not think the contact would be harmful or offensive. Dual intent jurisdiction- no battery. Single intent- battery.

In a single intent jurisdiction, it doesn't matter why the D acted, only that they meant to do what they did.

User avatar
cinephile
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:50 pm

Re: Dual Intent Jurisdictions-- Torts

Postby cinephile » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:09 pm

bostonlawchick wrote:In my notes, I have

single intent- D only needs to intend the contact that results in harm or offense

dual intent- D must intend the contact AND that the contact be harmful or offensive

A guy randomly kisses a woman he just met. Obviously he did not think the contact would be harmful or offensive. Dual intent jurisdiction- no battery. Single intent- battery.

In a single intent jurisdiction, it doesn't matter why the D acted, only that they meant to do what they did.


This would still be a battery in a dual intent jurisdiction because he should have known it'd be offensive.

The example between single/double we learned was a couple of kids playing a prank on a guy. They didn't have the purpose of harming/offending him nor were they substantially certain that harm would occur. But it did happen because of freak circumstances. So it's a battery under single intent but wouldn't be under dual intent.

User avatar
bostonlawchick
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:09 am

Re: Dual Intent Jurisdictions-- Torts

Postby bostonlawchick » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:18 pm

That was the example that was given in our casebook and that the prof went over, so I just assumed it was correct. If the guy didn't think it was going to be offensive or know to a substantial certainty it would be offensive, it wouldn't be intent under dual intent. Obviously there aren't many situations where someone is so completely wrong about something, so its not realistic, but that's what we learned.

User avatar
cinephile
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:50 pm

Re: Dual Intent Jurisdictions-- Torts

Postby cinephile » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:22 pm

If your professor gave that example, s/he should accept it on an exam.

Was this stranger kissing people mentally incompetent? That's an example we got as the mentally incompetent can't form the purpose nor can they be substantially certain about the outcome of the actions.

User avatar
bostonlawchick
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:09 am

Re: Dual Intent Jurisdictions-- Torts

Postby bostonlawchick » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:34 pm

Nope... just found it, it was a hypo presented in a case- Wagner v. State. The judge said "a man who decides to flatter a woman spotted in a crowd with an unpetitioned-for kiss would find no objection under [dual intent] so long as his intentional contact was initiated with no intent to injure or offend." He was using it as an example of why the court refused to adopt a dual intent standard.

RelativeEase
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: Dual Intent Jurisdictions-- Torts

Postby RelativeEase » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:32 pm

single intent - only have to intend the contact. Then the contact happens to be harmful/off.
Dual intent- intend the contact and intend the harm(or offense)

pretty straight forward

ceereeus420
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:01 am

Re: Dual Intent Jurisdictions-- Torts

Postby ceereeus420 » Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:25 am

The way I understand it is in single intent D can be liable for accidently battering someone, in dual he needs to have done it on purpose




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pandapops and 5 guests