can an intentional tort be negligence?

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
unclej
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 9:36 pm

can an intentional tort be negligence?

Postby unclej » Sat Jun 20, 2015 11:04 pm

if A intentionally throws a rock at B and B sees it coming and it hits him, that's two intentional torts: assault and battery

but can you also say that's negligence?
duty: to be reasonable and not throw rocks
breach: he threw the rock.
causation: but-for and proximate
damages: medical bills

User avatar
lacrossebrother
Top 17 consensus poster
Posts: 6850
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:15 pm

Re: can an intentional tort be negligence?

Postby lacrossebrother » Sat Jun 20, 2015 11:32 pm

1. Are you a 0l?
2. No. Just as murder can't be negligent homicide.
Negligence means a lack of, or an inability to prove, a more culpable mental state.

User avatar
lacrossebrother
Top 17 consensus poster
Posts: 6850
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:15 pm

Re: can an intentional tort be negligence?

Postby lacrossebrother » Sun Jun 21, 2015 12:01 am

also it's just one intentional tort. battery.

ditch digger
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:52 pm

Re: can an intentional tort be negligence?

Postby ditch digger » Sun Jun 21, 2015 12:08 am

lacrossebrother wrote:also it's just one intentional tort. battery.


Actually, there are two torts in the hypo: assault in battery. B saw the rocking coming towards him, and thus, he was in apprehension of imminent harmful contact.

User avatar
lacrossebrother
Top 17 consensus poster
Posts: 6850
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:15 pm

Re: can an intentional tort be negligence?

Postby lacrossebrother » Sun Jun 21, 2015 12:39 am

ditch digger wrote:
lacrossebrother wrote:also it's just one intentional tort. battery.


Actually, there are two torts in the hypo: assault in battery. B saw the rocking coming towards him, and thus, he was in apprehension of imminent harmful contact.

ok i actually have no idea how this works. it doesn't really matter since you won't be able to recover for both. but negligence & intentional torts are indeed importantly distinct because of vicarious liability & indemnification issues.

timmyd
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:50 pm

Re: can an intentional tort be negligence?

Postby timmyd » Sun Jun 21, 2015 1:14 am

I mean, allege all possible claims that arnt frivolous. I think you could allege all three. Why not?

User avatar
runinthefront
Posts: 1098
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:18 am

Re: can an intentional tort be negligence?

Postby runinthefront » Sun Jun 21, 2015 1:18 am

unclej wrote:if A intentionally throws a rock at B and B sees it coming and it hits him, that's two intentional torts: assault and battery

but can you also say that's negligence?
duty: to be reasonable and not throw rocks
breach: he threw the rock.
causation: but-for and proximate
damages: medical bills


lacrossebrother wrote:ok i actually have no idea how this works. it doesn't really matter since you won't be able to recover for both. but negligence & intentional torts are indeed importantly distinct because of vicarious liability & indemnification issues.


My torts professor once said that because most jurisdictions have a longer statute of limitations for negligence claims (as opposed to intentional torts which typically require filing within 1-2 years of the incident), many plaintiffs allege that the act was done negligently, rather than intentionally, and you get the effect of pleadings in which the defendant argues "no, i meant to do it!"

I'm assuming similar cases arise from time to time based on the issues lacrossebro brings up

timmyd
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:50 pm

Re: can an intentional tort be negligence?

Postby timmyd » Sun Jun 21, 2015 1:19 am

That's not to say it can be intentional and negligent at the same time, there's a different inquiry into the state of mind, or lack of inquiry. Negligence was developed to cover situations where intent was not present but there is a deviation from some standard of care that we as a society feel should be compensated. So what I'm saying is that you could say battery and assumt but to the extent you cannot prove requisite intent, it was a deviation from standard of care. It cannot be negligence and an intentional tort at the same time in my opinion.

BigZuck
Posts: 10853
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: can an intentional tort be negligence?

Postby BigZuck » Sun Jun 21, 2015 1:52 am

Nah

lawman84
Posts: 3272
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: can an intentional tort be negligence?

Postby lawman84 » Sun Jun 21, 2015 3:45 am

timmyd wrote:I mean, allege all possible claims that arnt frivolous. I think you could allege all three. Why not?


You can. If you can't prove intent, you can fallback on negligence.

I think the point being made earlier is that the OP specifically said that it is intentional.

EDIT: Whoops, just realized that's a rhetorical question haha.

runinthefront wrote:
unclej wrote:if A intentionally throws a rock at B and B sees it coming and it hits him, that's two intentional torts: assault and battery

but can you also say that's negligence?
duty: to be reasonable and not throw rocks
breach: he threw the rock.
causation: but-for and proximate
damages: medical bills


lacrossebrother wrote:ok i actually have no idea how this works. it doesn't really matter since you won't be able to recover for both. but negligence & intentional torts are indeed importantly distinct because of vicarious liability & indemnification issues.


My torts professor once said that because most jurisdictions have a longer statute of limitations for negligence claims (as opposed to intentional torts which typically require filing within 1-2 years of the incident), many plaintiffs allege that the act was done negligently, rather than intentionally, and you get the effect of pleadings in which the defendant argues "no, i meant to do it!"

I'm assuming similar cases arise from time to time based on the issues lacrossebro brings up


Yea, I've read some cases about that. And it can be dismissed if they determine that it was an intentional tort and the plaintiff is only alleging negligence to get around the statute of limitations.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests