Help me analyze this intentional tort hypo please

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Geist13
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:21 pm

Re: Help me analyze this intentional tort hypo please

Postby Geist13 » Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:58 am

ITT a bunch of 1Ls learn, by revelation, that not every professor in the freaking country agrees on the answer to a particular question.

User avatar
Bildungsroman
Posts: 5548
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: Help me analyze this intentional tort hypo please

Postby Bildungsroman » Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:59 am

Geist13 wrote:ITT a bunch of 1Ls learn, by revelation, that not every professor in the freaking country agrees on the answer to a particular question.

Obviously answers may vary by professor and he should go by what his professor tells him, but if the professor is saying that the dual-intent approach to battery is the majority rule then the professor is doing him a disservice.

Geist13
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:21 pm

Re: Help me analyze this intentional tort hypo please

Postby Geist13 » Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:03 pm

Bildungsroman wrote:
Geist13 wrote:ITT a bunch of 1Ls learn, by revelation, that not every professor in the freaking country agrees on the answer to a particular question.

Obviously answers may vary by professor and he should go by what his professor tells him, but if the professor is saying that the dual-intent approach to battery is the majority rule then the professor is doing him a disservice.


And I'm sure his professor would seriously disagree with you there. And I'm also sure that you've personally experienced the disservice that such a lesson has on lawyers and aren't at all just going off what your professor/e&e tell you.

User avatar
Arbiter213
Posts: 2249
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: Help me analyze this intentional tort hypo please

Postby Arbiter213 » Sat Feb 04, 2012 2:44 pm

There is so much fail in this thread.

User avatar
Flips88
Posts: 13589
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Help me analyze this intentional tort hypo please

Postby Flips88 » Sat Feb 04, 2012 2:49 pm

Arbiter213 wrote:There is so much fail in this thread.

No you're a towel

User avatar
Arbiter213
Posts: 2249
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: Help me analyze this intentional tort hypo please

Postby Arbiter213 » Sat Feb 04, 2012 3:32 pm

Flips88 wrote:
Arbiter213 wrote:There is so much fail in this thread.

No you're a towel

:lol: :lol:

User avatar
Bildungsroman
Posts: 5548
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: Help me analyze this intentional tort hypo please

Postby Bildungsroman » Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:35 am

Geist13 wrote:
Bildungsroman wrote:
Geist13 wrote:ITT a bunch of 1Ls learn, by revelation, that not every professor in the freaking country agrees on the answer to a particular question.

Obviously answers may vary by professor and he should go by what his professor tells him, but if the professor is saying that the dual-intent approach to battery is the majority rule then the professor is doing him a disservice.


And I'm sure his professor would seriously disagree with you there. And I'm also sure that you've personally experienced the disservice that such a lesson has on lawyers and aren't at all just going off what your professor/e&e tell you.

You're right, there are no right answers and the law means whatever you want it to mean.

But again, if his professor is teaching that the dual-intent requirement of battery is the correct rule to apply, then that's what he should apply.

Anomaly
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:55 pm

Re: Help me analyze this intentional tort hypo please

Postby Anomaly » Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:15 am

Now I'm totally confused. Thanks tls.

Either way, the point of the hypo is to get you to talk about the relevance of cultural evidence in determining intent for battery. Sure, the reasonable American girl who's shopping for groceries would be offended when a stranger touches her. But this is still a hard case because the dude had no offensive intent. I mean he just moved here last week - how's he supposed to know about our social norms? Do you think he knew? If he's liable, how much money do you think the jury should award for the girl's injury?

Maybe you can say this is a case like white v. muniz where the defendant was NOT liable for battery because she couldn't appreciate the offensiveness of her contact.

I don't know. But the question says "make A's best case". It does not say "please cut and paste your pre-written battery analysis from your outline and insert A and B".

User avatar
Flips88
Posts: 13589
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Help me analyze this intentional tort hypo please

Postby Flips88 » Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:31 am

I believe the award would be the plaintiff's choosing of a time to take out the defendant via predator drone. Disclaimer: IANAL.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests