Battery, Transferred Intent Q

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
seahawk32
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:19 pm

Battery, Transferred Intent Q

Postby seahawk32 » Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:09 pm

thanks
Last edited by seahawk32 on Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

American_in_China
Posts: 308
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 4:19 pm

Re: Battery, Transferred Intent Q

Postby American_in_China » Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:36 pm

Change snowball to knife and tell me if your hypo makes sense...

American_in_China
Posts: 308
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 4:19 pm

Re: Battery, Transferred Intent Q

Postby American_in_China » Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:45 pm

PS: Tortious intent is merely the intent to do the action which causes harm. Consent does not negate intent; it's an affirmative defense to the "unwanted or offensive contact" part of battery (go look at the restatement for elaboration)- if the contact was consented to, the person can't say it was unwanted or offensive (unless the action they consented to was dramatically different than the action that occurred)

If P didn't explicitly or implicitly give consent then this is still a battery. Consent as an affirmative defense applies on to those who have given consent. The fact that T, the one who the contact was intended for, did give consent is irrelevant because we don't give a darn about whether T found the snowball hitting P to be an "offensive" contact.

The best defense for a snowball based tort would be one of implicit consent or that a "reasonable person" would not find the contact offensive. If P decided to stroll through the middle of the park where there were fifty kids having a big snowball battle, a court would probably say consent is implicit. At the same time, it's hard to rationalize awarding damages to someone who got hit by a snowball unless it turned out to be an eggshell skull type case (or maybe the snowball was actually an iceball, which a reasonable person would certainly object to).

z0rk
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:11 pm

Re: Battery, Transferred Intent Q

Postby z0rk » Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:47 pm

American_in_China wrote:Change snowball to knife and tell me if your hypo makes sense...


Not so fast, the scenario can be plausible with a knife.

Scenario One:
Defendant works at a carnival as a knife thrower. His assistant consents to allowing him to throw knives at her on a spinning wheel, a knife misses and hits a person in the stands.

Is this negligence or a transferred intent case?

Scenario Two:
Defendant is packing his house up to move with the help of two friends, A and B. Friend A asks the defendant to toss him a scissors so he can cut some packaging materials. Defendant throws the scissors and they graze friend B in the eye.

Is this negligence or a transferred intent case?

Gorki
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 12:41 pm

Re: Battery, Transferred Intent Q

Postby Gorki » Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:00 pm

seahawk32 wrote:D throws a snowball at T, who has consented to the contact. D misses T, and instead the snowball hits P, who has not consented to the contact.

Does transferred intent apply? I think consent is a defense. Therefore, D has prima facie assaulted T, but since T has consented, there is no tort. Is it accurate to say that D has tortious intent (to batter T), and therefore it transfers to P, or does the consent negate the tortious intent?


P v. D = Negligence imo.

User avatar
laxbrah420
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:53 am

Re: Battery, Transferred Intent Q

Postby laxbrah420 » Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:57 am

American_in_China wrote:PS: Tortious intent is merely the intent to do the action which causes harm. Consent does not negate intent; it's an affirmative defense to the "unwanted or offensive contact" part of battery (go look at the restatement for elaboration)- if the contact was consented to, the person can't say it was unwanted or offensive (unless the action they consented to was dramatically different than the action that occurred)

If P didn't explicitly or implicitly give consent then this is still a battery. Consent as an affirmative defense applies on to those who have given consent. The fact that T, the one who the contact was intended for, did give consent is irrelevant because we don't give a darn about whether T found the snowball hitting P to be an "offensive" contact.

The best defense for a snowball based tort would be one of implicit consent or that a "reasonable person" would not find the contact offensive. If P decided to stroll through the middle of the park where there were fifty kids having a big snowball battle, a court would probably say consent is implicit. At the same time, it's hard to rationalize awarding damages to someone who got hit by a snowball unless it turned out to be an eggshell skull type case (or maybe the snowball was actually an iceball, which a reasonable person would certainly object to).

This is so dumb. If there's no tort to start it can't be transferred. I think you could probably do away with all of negligence with your crazy analyses here




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AZ123, Hikikomorist, idissent, lakers3, Monday, ponyboy7 and 11 guests