Torts E&E question on battery

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
JCFindley
Posts: 1283
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 1:19 pm

Re: Torts E&E question on battery

Postby JCFindley » Sun Sep 02, 2012 6:20 pm

Blessedassurance wrote:
nonprofit-prophet wrote: Another group of cases featured courts that looked into whether defendants intended harm or offense, the fact that the touch itself was unintentional didn't matter.


I'm curious...Is it possible to intend harm with unintentional touch?


Hypo, X raises gun to shoot Y, he misjudges and pokes Y in the eye with the pistol instead.

Corny? yes. Intending harm but unintentional touch? yes.

User avatar
LazinessPerSe
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Torts E&E question on battery

Postby LazinessPerSe » Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:44 am

Single Intent Jurisdiction - Intend the contact
Dual Intent Jurisdiction - (1) Intend the contact -AND- (2) Intend the contact to be harmful or offensive
Modified Dual Intent Jurisdiction - (1) Intend the contact -AND- (2) A reasonable person would find the contact harmful or offensive

Whatever jurisdiction you're in answers the question of intent. I forget what Glannon espouses. I learned all 3 ways and only had to do Single Intent on the exam.

User avatar
westinghouse60
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:27 am

Re: Torts E&E question on battery

Postby westinghouse60 » Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:11 pm

Isn't there a way you could alter OP's hypo slightly to get to battery without intending contact?

Guy drives his car like asshole in parking lot, and meaning to drive straight at someone and swerve away at the last second in order to scare them, accidentally hits them.

Wouldn't that be battery? I.e. intent to put someone in fear of harm or contact+harm/contact actually occurs=battery? Same idea as if you shot a gun at someone to scare them, and the bullet ended up hitting them (or random 3rd party instead but that's another issue). Seems like that's the way we've learned it.

User avatar
Scotusnerd
Posts: 813
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Torts E&E question on battery

Postby Scotusnerd » Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:22 pm

That's where reasonable certainty comes in. It's still intent, and thus is still a battery.

User avatar
LazinessPerSe
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Torts E&E question on battery

Postby LazinessPerSe » Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:34 am

Yes, you can argue substantial certainty with that car hypo. You can also transfer the intent from assault. Either way works.

Klinklang
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 7:11 pm

Re: Torts E&E question on battery

Postby Klinklang » Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:32 pm

Greenchair, there is almost never a right or wrong answer...

^^^ The sum of my knowledge after seven days of law school.

User avatar
Scotusnerd
Posts: 813
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Torts E&E question on battery

Postby Scotusnerd » Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:01 am

Klinklang wrote:Greenchair, there is almost never a right or wrong answer...

^^^ The sum of my knowledge after seven days of law school.


But there are a hell of a lot of answers you can and should argue on the exam. :D

User avatar
LazinessPerSe
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Torts E&E question on battery

Postby LazinessPerSe » Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:39 am

Klinklang wrote:Greenchair, there is almost never a right or wrong answer...

^^^ The sum of my knowledge after seven days of law school.


This is a cop-out and a dangerous way to approach problems since it implies there are no good answers either.

Unless you're attempting to be cute.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests