Top Law Schools

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

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

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.

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...

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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