Our professor said there is a jurisdictional split in regards to battery:
Battery : intent to cause harmful/offensive contact and harmful/offensive contact occurs.
Well some jurisdictions, the majority, hold that intent modifies contact (intent to cause any contact) while the minority holds that intent modifies harmful/offensive (intent to cause harm/offense).
Is this correct or is my understanding off?
Torts Question (about intent) Forum
-
dakatz
- Posts: 2422
- Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:19 pm
Re: Torts Question (about intent)
You are certainly right that there is a jurisdictional split, but I believe you have it mixed up as to which one is the majority and which one is the minority. My professor explains the split as "single vs. dual" theory of intent. The traditional conception of battery, and the majority approach is what my prof. calls the "dual" theory. This where the actor both intends the contact itself, and also intends in his mind that the contact be harmful/offensive.
The minority approach or "single" intent theory involves the actor merely intending contact as a prerequisite for the "intent" element of battery. But this approach was essentially conceived as a way to cover 2 particular situations that otherwise would not be battery under the "dual" majority approach:
1. Mentally Handicapped: Many mentally handicapped people, while they intend contact with others whom they strike, may have no conception of the harm or offense they cause. So under the traditional definition of battery, they are not liable because they didn't "intend" to harm. So the "single" theory of solely requiring the intent to contact allows us to hold mentally handicapped liable.
2. Batteries of sexual nature: What about situations where a guy who just doesn't know any better tries to kiss a girl who really wants no part of it? What if he goes up to a stranger and starts massaging her shoulders? Of course he intended the contact itself, but he may claim (and be sincere in claiming) that he meant no harm or offense because he thought the girl would like it. Under the traditional concept of battery intent, such people would also not be liable. So the minority "single" approach allows us to find such people liable as well.
Sorry for the long-winded answer. Yes, there is a jurisdictional split, but I believe you mixed up which is which.
The minority approach or "single" intent theory involves the actor merely intending contact as a prerequisite for the "intent" element of battery. But this approach was essentially conceived as a way to cover 2 particular situations that otherwise would not be battery under the "dual" majority approach:
1. Mentally Handicapped: Many mentally handicapped people, while they intend contact with others whom they strike, may have no conception of the harm or offense they cause. So under the traditional definition of battery, they are not liable because they didn't "intend" to harm. So the "single" theory of solely requiring the intent to contact allows us to hold mentally handicapped liable.
2. Batteries of sexual nature: What about situations where a guy who just doesn't know any better tries to kiss a girl who really wants no part of it? What if he goes up to a stranger and starts massaging her shoulders? Of course he intended the contact itself, but he may claim (and be sincere in claiming) that he meant no harm or offense because he thought the girl would like it. Under the traditional concept of battery intent, such people would also not be liable. So the minority "single" approach allows us to find such people liable as well.
Sorry for the long-winded answer. Yes, there is a jurisdictional split, but I believe you mixed up which is which.
-
xiening
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 1:56 am
Re: Torts Question (about intent)
The above answer is correct! Just in short, the dual intent is the majority and single intent is the minority.
The dual intent requires the plaintiff to prove the defendant voluntary action + intent to harm. But obviously this is a defendant friendly jurisdiction because defendant may deny the intent to harm.
In contrast, single intent ONLY requires the voluntary action, and hence it is easier for the plaintiff to prove defendant's intent.
Just remember one is plaintiff friendly and one is defendant friend you should be ok.
The dual intent requires the plaintiff to prove the defendant voluntary action + intent to harm. But obviously this is a defendant friendly jurisdiction because defendant may deny the intent to harm.
In contrast, single intent ONLY requires the voluntary action, and hence it is easier for the plaintiff to prove defendant's intent.
Just remember one is plaintiff friendly and one is defendant friend you should be ok.
-
mbutterfly
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:17 pm
Re: Torts Question (about intent)
Thanks for clearing it up! I was just outlining and trying to organize my class notes and got a little confused on this. I think the professor might have misspoke cause there is no way I wrote this down incorrectly. Hmm, what if everyone in the class gets it wrong?
-
dakatz
- Posts: 2422
- Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:19 pm
Re: Torts Question (about intent)
So then why not clarify with the professor? Better to hear it from his/her mouth than just assume you have it understood.mbutterfly wrote:Thanks for clearing it up! I was just outlining and trying to organize my class notes and got a little confused on this. I think the professor might have misspoke cause there is no way I wrote this down incorrectly. Hmm, what if everyone in the class gets it wrong?
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
APHill
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:22 am
Re: Torts Question (about intent)
Are you guys talking about Vosburg battery definition vs. 2nd restatement battery definition? I think you are.
-
uvauvauva
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:02 pm
Re: Torts Question (about intent)
Seeing the forest in the treesAPHill wrote:Are you guys talking about Vosburg battery definition vs. 2nd restatement battery definition? I think you are.
Congrats APHILL
-
APHill
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:22 am
Re: Torts Question (about intent)
Sarcasm or seriously?betasteve wrote:What a substantive post!APHill wrote:Are you guys talking about Vosburg battery definition vs. 2nd restatement battery definition? I think you are.
-
APHill
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:22 am
Re: Torts Question (about intent)
well, nobody else has mentioned it before, so i thought it might help clear things out a bit.betasteve wrote:Sarcasm. Can't believe you had to ask.APHill wrote:Sarcasm or seriously?betasteve wrote:What a substantive post!APHill wrote:Are you guys talking about Vosburg battery definition vs. 2nd restatement battery definition? I think you are.
