IT hypo

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Anomaly
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:55 pm

IT hypo

Postby Anomaly » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:46 am

John and Michelle, who have been dating for several months, are out on a date at a frat party. John, thinking that the party is lame, decides to do everyone a favor by spiking a large punch bowl with a few shots of vodka – a move he genuinely believes will be greatly appreciated. Michelle, unaware of the vodka, takes a sip of her punch and says, “Excellent! Someone’s spiked the punch!” Rico, a reformed alcoholic, takes a drink of punch and immediately spits it out, yelling, “Hey! Who spiked the punch?”

Identify and evaluate all claims. Anyone wanna take a stab?

User avatar
fundamentallybroken
Posts: 663
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:52 am

Re: IT hypo

Postby fundamentallybroken » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:18 pm

ETA: Nevermind!
Last edited by fundamentallybroken on Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: IT hypo

Postby Anomaly » Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:21 pm

These are intentional torts but good point.

Seminole_305
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:11 pm

Re: IT hypo

Postby Seminole_305 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:55 pm

Hmm maybe battery... offensive contract and all.

Maybe Emotion Distress for Rico, but the facts don't give enough to prove it.

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

Re: IT hypo

Postby DocHawkeye » Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:03 pm

There are seven intentional torts. Battery, Assault, False Imprisonment, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Trespass to Land, Trespass to Chattels, and Conversion. I see two possible intentional torts: battery (but no assault) and trespass to chattels.

Battery occurs when an actor intentionally causes harmful or offensive contact with the person of another (or a third person) and such contact occurs. Intent is when the actor know or is substantially certain this his actions will bring about harm. The type or extent of the harm need not be known to the actor. John intended to put the vodka in the punch, knowing that it might cause some harm. But for his spiking the punch, Rico would not have suffered to offensive (or harmful?) contact with the vodka. Overall, this claim is weak.

Often, assault and battery are pared. Assault occurs when an actor intends to cause in imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact. There is nothing in the facts to suggest that Rico, or anyone else, was aware of John’s actions before the offensive contact occurred.

The fraternity probably has a better cause of action against John for trespass to chattels. Trespass to chattels when an actor intentionally intermeddles with the chattel of another such that that chattel is damaged as to its condition, quality or value. The intent element is the same as above as is causation - but for John's actions, the punch would not contain vodka. The case can be made that the punch cannot be used for the purposes intended by its owner.

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

Re: IT hypo

Postby Anomaly » Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:52 pm

.
Last edited by Anomaly on Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gamecubesupreme
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:54 pm

Re: IT hypo

Postby Gamecubesupreme » Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:56 pm

lol Rico, quite a sly reference.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: axel.foley, ennn01, RaceJudicata, sirggscott and 14 guests