question abt transferred intent Forum

[goosey]

It says in my casebook (twerski/henderson-pg 12, bottom paragraph) that

"The transferred intent doctrine operates to impose liability when a defendent has the intent to commit assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, or trespas to chatteks and harm results to another's person or property"

It then says "intent to commit any one of the five torts will suffice to make out the intent for any of the others"

It seems obvious (but doesn't make sense?), but does this mean that if one could establish intent for x to commit assault, then intent for false imprisonment is also estaablished? If so, then how can that make any sense? If not and I am totally misunderstanding, what does this sentence mean

[Doritos]

I take transferred intent to mean if you intend to commit a tortuous action then you are liable for the subsequent damages (though this depends on the jurisdictions standard). If you intend to commit a trespass by knocking down someone's fence and that knocked down fence hits someone you are liable for their injuries. You did not intend to commit battery in this case but you did, and if your intent to trespass can be proven you are liable. In our casebook a case called Talmage v. Smith was discussed when a guy threw a stick at some trespassers and hit one of the guys who he claims he did not see and thus did not mean to hit. The court said that even though he did not mean to hit that guy specifically he intended to hit somebody and is thus liable. I have only had two days of torts class but i hope that helps some. i still am working out transferred intent myself

[goosey]

I take transferred intent to mean if you intend to commit a tortuous action then you are liable for the subsequent damages (though this depends on the jurisdictions standard). If you intend to commit a trespass by knocking down someone's fence and that knocked down fence hits someone you are liable for their injuries. You did not intend to commit battery in this case but you did, and if your intent to trespass can be proven you are liable. In our casebook a case called Talmage v. Smith was discussed when a guy threw a stick at some trespassers and hit one of the guys who he claims he did not see and thus did not mean to hit. The court said that even though he did not mean to hit that guy specifically he intended to hit somebody and is thus liable. I have only had two days of torts class but i hope that helps some. i still am working out transferred intent myself

Ohhh ok, that makes more sense--i have no idea why I didn't get it. So basically, if one has the intent to do torttuous act A and in the process, B and C inadvertently transpire, then they are liable for A, B, and C--even though there was no intent for B and C. So transfer of intent can be made from either person you intended tortuous act against to person you actually committed tortuous act against--or, it can also transfer from one tort to another, within those 5 torts.

[LoriBelle]

I think you guys have gotten it straightened out. However, the word is not tortuous, it is tortious. Tortuous is a different word entirely.

[Doritos]

I think you guys have gotten it straightened out. However, the word is not tortuous, it is tortious. Tortuous is a different word entirely.

haha good call. thats what i get for not spell checking