Torts E&E question on battery Forum

[JCFindley]

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.

[LazinessPerSe]

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.

[westinghouse60]

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.

[Scotusnerd]

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

[LazinessPerSe]

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

[Klinklang]

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

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

[Scotusnerd]

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.

[LazinessPerSe]

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.