Negligence & Intentional Torts

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
MonsterTRM
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:48 pm

Negligence & Intentional Torts

Postby MonsterTRM » Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:59 pm

Theoretically, if a party is found liable for battery (an intentional tort), was he also being negligent?

Would it be permissible, that after analyzing whether a battery occurred, to look to a second issue of whether the party was also negligent?

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: Negligence & Intentional Torts

Postby uvabro » Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:54 am

They're diff things totally butninsee the argument that it's not acting with reasonable care ro batter someone. But battery is P's better arg bec it gets more $$$$. Intentional torrs are "kicker pays all" from vosburg. There's no issue of but for or harm witgin risk. Ur bro wnr give u battery. Way too easy.

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: Negligence & Intentional Torts

Postby uvabro » Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:58 am

MonsterTRM wrote:Theoretically, if a party is found liable for battery (an intentional tort), was he also being negligent?

Would it be permissible, that after analyzing whether a battery occurred, to look to a second issue of whether the party was also negligent?

I dont think ud ever make that argument. D may. Like if u pointed a gun at me and shot to scare me, its reckless but also battery so id get all harms.

I think of intentional torts as N on steroids, bec battering someone is always neg

User avatar
SuperCerealBrah
Posts: 244
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:34 pm

Re: Negligence & Intentional Torts

Postby SuperCerealBrah » Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:59 am

uvabro wrote:
MonsterTRM wrote:Theoretically, if a party is found liable for battery (an intentional tort), was he also being negligent?

Would it be permissible, that after analyzing whether a battery occurred, to look to a second issue of whether the party was also negligent?

I dont think ud ever make that argument. D may. Like if u pointed a gun at me and shot to scare me, its reckless but also battery so id get all harms.

I think of intentional torts as N on steroids, bec battering someone is always neg


That would be assault not battery.

MonsterTRM
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:48 pm

Re: Negligence & Intentional Torts

Postby MonsterTRM » Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:10 am

So it might not be worth being an independent "issue" section on a final, but it might be a potential counter-argument for D because it reduces D's liability? (If D is able to show N rather than Battery?)

Thanks for the help!

ClubberLang
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:34 am

Re: Negligence & Intentional Torts

Postby ClubberLang » Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:32 am

uvabro wrote:They're diff things totally butninsee the argument that it's not acting with reasonable care ro batter someone. But battery is P's better arg bec it gets more $$$$. Intentional torrs are "kicker pays all" from vosburg. There's no issue of but for or harm witgin risk. Ur bro wnr give u battery. Way too easy.


You put it so eloquently.

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

Re: Negligence & Intentional Torts

Postby LazinessPerSe » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:48 am

MonsterTRM wrote:So it might not be worth being an independent "issue" section on a final, but it might be a potential counter-argument for D because it reduces D's liability? (If D is able to show N rather than Battery?)

Thanks for the help!


If the hypo is screaming intentional torts, I'd stick with intentional torts. There's usually no substantive points for trying to fit a negligence argument on facts that really lend themselves to one or more intentional torts. Negligence, by definition, is not intentional conduct. You're free to argue in the alternative, but that's stretching it.

Your counter-argument idea is not clever enough to get you many points. You defend against intentional torts by either (a) attacking the prima facie case or (b) asserting an affirmative defense. You're not going to assert that you were negligent because its tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot on the issue of liability.

musicfor18
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:15 pm

Re: Negligence & Intentional Torts

Postby musicfor18 » Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:54 pm

There is one factor that can make negligence claims preferable to a P. SOL is usually longer on negligence than intentional torts. For this reason, Ps sometimes try to make an intentional act into a negligent one.

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: Negligence & Intentional Torts

Postby uvabro » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:02 pm

SuperCerealBrah wrote:
uvabro wrote:
MonsterTRM wrote:Theoretically, if a party is found liable for battery (an intentional tort), was he also being negligent?

Would it be permissible, that after analyzing whether a battery occurred, to look to a second issue of whether the party was also negligent?

I dont think ud ever make that argument. D may. Like if u pointed a gun at me and shot to scare me, its reckless but also battery so id get all harms.

I think of intentional torts as N on steroids, bec battering someone is always neg


That would be assault not battery.

nah that's incorrect if u intended just to scare me, but just hit me it becomes battery..... grading is for gangstas, not tortzzzians.

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: Negligence & Intentional Torts

Postby uvabro » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:04 pm

ClubberLang wrote:
uvabro wrote:They're diff things totally butninsee the argument that it's not acting with reasonable care ro batter someone. But battery is P's better arg bec it gets more $$$$. Intentional torrs are "kicker pays all" from vosburg. There's no issue of but for or harm witgin risk. Ur bro wnr give u battery. Way too easy.


You put it so eloquently.

my goal is to become the first justice who writes in slang.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: Negligence & Intentional Torts

Postby kalvano » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:05 pm

uvabro wrote:
SuperCerealBrah wrote:
uvabro wrote:
MonsterTRM wrote:Theoretically, if a party is found liable for battery (an intentional tort), was he also being negligent?

Would it be permissible, that after analyzing whether a battery occurred, to look to a second issue of whether the party was also negligent?

I dont think ud ever make that argument. D may. Like if u pointed a gun at me and shot to scare me, its reckless but also battery so id get all harms.

I think of intentional torts as N on steroids, bec battering someone is always neg


That would be assault not battery.

nah that's incorrect if u intended just to scare me, but just hit me it becomes battery..... grading is for gangstas, not tortzzzians.


It's assault if it scares you. It's battery if it touches you. If it touches and scares you, it's assault and battery.

User avatar
SuperCerealBrah
Posts: 244
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:34 pm

Re: Negligence & Intentional Torts

Postby SuperCerealBrah » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:10 pm

^^^

The above

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: Negligence & Intentional Torts

Postby uvabro » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:34 pm

werd. i just figured battery would get more $ so that he'd argue that, not assault unless he was going for NIED damages.

musicfor18
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:15 pm

Re: Negligence & Intentional Torts

Postby musicfor18 » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:44 pm

kalvano wrote:
It's assault if it scares you. It's battery if it touches you. If it touches and scares you, it's assault and battery.


Actually, you don't have to be scared for it to be assault. You just have to think a battery is imminent.

User avatar
ColoBoul
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: Negligence & Intentional Torts

Postby ColoBoul » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:47 pm

uvabro wrote:werd. i just figured battery would get more $ so that he'd argue that, not assault unless he was going for NIED damages.


You mean IIED. The N in NIED is Negligently.....

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: Negligence & Intentional Torts

Postby uvabro » Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:07 pm

ColoBoul wrote:
uvabro wrote:werd. i just figured battery would get more $ so that he'd argue that, not assault unless he was going for NIED damages.


You mean IIED. The N in NIED is Negligently.....

yeah we haven't learned it. i figured that if something is intentional it would def satisfy a negligent standard.

rishabhagny
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 12:03 am

Re: Negligence & Intentional Torts

Postby rishabhagny » Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:36 am

Does assault not merge with battery in some juridictions?

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: Negligence & Intentional Torts

Postby uvabro » Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:41 am

rishabhagny wrote:Does assault not merge with battery in some juridictions?

dude, battery is where u touch someone in an unchill way. assault is where u make someone reasonably apprehend they're gonna be touched in an unchill way. Unless the person isn't looking or aware, it is necessary to commit assault in order to batter. However, battery doesn't require knowledge of being touched to make a case. Assault does require knowledge. My guess is the logiczzz is if someone says to u, "Hey, I gave u an urple-nurple last night" u'd be offended, but if someone said "I tried to give u an urple nurplezzzzz but u karate kicked me in ur sleep" u wouldn't be afraid of immmmmediately being nurpled.

User avatar
greenchair
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 1:04 am

Re: Negligence & Intentional Torts

Postby greenchair » Thu Nov 22, 2012 9:42 am

I had the same question so I asked my prof...

He said when intent is borderline, talk about it. When intent is crystal clear, it's a waste of your time.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Downstairs_Mixup, j431e782, Op_Diom and 16 guests