real quick ? about intentional torts liability Forum
- dudnaito
- Posts: 201
- Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:16 pm
real quick ? about intentional torts liability
if A batters B, and B goes to hospital, and freak fire happens, then A is not liable for B's fire-incurred injuries, and the hospital is not held negligible either, so does that mean that B cannot recover at all even though A's action is a clear example of cause in fact under "but-for" test... i know it doesn't pass proximate cause, but there seems to be an issue of justice here, or am i just soft?
-
- Posts: 4249
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
You've got it right.
But, why would it be more "just" to make A pay for something he couldn't have foreseen, stopped, or avoided, and that is in no way related to the wrong he committed?
But, why would it be more "just" to make A pay for something he couldn't have foreseen, stopped, or avoided, and that is in no way related to the wrong he committed?
- kalvano
- Posts: 11951
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
Is it reasonably foreseeable? I wouldn't think so.
- mths
- Posts: 1098
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:24 am
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
Here is my take:kalvano wrote:Is it reasonably foreseeable? I wouldn't think so.
Even though A intended to cause the injury and he could reasonably foresee that his battery would send B to the hospital, can't you still argue that the injuries sustained in the hospital are third party intervention? I mean, acts of God aren't recoverable and it seems unjust and over deterrence to hold A liable for something not only not reasonably forseeable but also not a proximate result of his actions. Like, it would be different if A got beat up in the hospital by someone so why, by the same measure, can you not include a fire in that category?
-
- Posts: 4249
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
This makes my head spin.mths wrote:Here is my take:kalvano wrote:Is it reasonably foreseeable? I wouldn't think so.
Even though A intended to cause the injury and he could reasonably foresee that his battery would send B to the hospital, can't you still argue that the injuries sustained in the hospital are third party intervention? I mean, acts of God aren't recoverable and it seems unjust and over deterrence to hold A liable for something not only not reasonably forseeable but also not a proximate result of his actions. Like, it would be different if A got beat up in the hospital by someone so why, by the same measure, can you not include a fire in that category?
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- kalvano
- Posts: 11951
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
That's what I meant. A couldn't reasonably foresee a freak fire.mths wrote:Here is my take:kalvano wrote:Is it reasonably foreseeable? I wouldn't think so.
Even though A intended to cause the injury and he could reasonably foresee that his battery would send B to the hospital, can't you still argue that the injuries sustained in the hospital are third party intervention? I mean, acts of God aren't recoverable and it seems unjust and over deterrence to hold A liable for something not only not reasonably forseeable but also not a proximate result of his actions. Like, it would be different if A got beat up in the hospital by someone so why, by the same measure, can you not include a fire in that category?
If he beat B so badly and B was being kept alive by machines and woke up and in a daze pulled his tubes out and died, then something like that would probably be classed as "reasonably foreseeable".
But a freak fire? That's more the hospital's fault for not exercising due care with its patients and getting them out.
-
- Posts: 7921
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
It's not foreseeable that a freak fire accident (reminiscent of the freak gasoline fight accidents) would happen at the hospital. It's also not anforeseeable harm in a unforeseeable manner. This seems like an easy line to draw with legal causation.
Although I have to say, this seems about as foreseeable as a surgeon operating him while drunk. That argument makes little sense to me. But hey, I'm not here to formulate opinions.
Although I have to say, this seems about as foreseeable as a surgeon operating him while drunk. That argument makes little sense to me. But hey, I'm not here to formulate opinions.
Last edited by beach_terror on Thu Dec 02, 2010 6:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- mths
- Posts: 1098
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:24 am
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
Haha I'm just saying that to get over the "intentional tort" speed bump, you could argue that the fire (act of god) was a superceding cause just like another int. tort or act of negligence would be. I don't think the issue is cut and dry at all and you could definitely argue the other side pretty well.Renzo wrote:This makes my head spin.mths wrote:Here is my take:kalvano wrote:Is it reasonably foreseeable? I wouldn't think so.
Even though A intended to cause the injury and he could reasonably foresee that his battery would send B to the hospital, can't you still argue that the injuries sustained in the hospital are third party intervention? I mean, acts of God aren't recoverable and it seems unjust and over deterrence to hold A liable for something not only not reasonably forseeable but also not a proximate result of his actions. Like, it would be different if A got beat up in the hospital by someone so why, by the same measure, can you not include a fire in that category?
- mths
- Posts: 1098
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:24 am
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
To argue the other side, Putney couldn't reasonably foresee Vosburg's leg falling off. I think intentional torts is much more lenient on the forseeability of the end result and as long as the harm flows uninterrupted from the breach, A should be held liable. This would require arguing that the fire is not an interruption because it is not technically a third party act.kalvano wrote:That's what I meant. A couldn't reasonably foresee a freak fire.mths wrote:Here is my take:kalvano wrote:Is it reasonably foreseeable? I wouldn't think so.
Even though A intended to cause the injury and he could reasonably foresee that his battery would send B to the hospital, can't you still argue that the injuries sustained in the hospital are third party intervention? I mean, acts of God aren't recoverable and it seems unjust and over deterrence to hold A liable for something not only not reasonably forseeable but also not a proximate result of his actions. Like, it would be different if A got beat up in the hospital by someone so why, by the same measure, can you not include a fire in that category?
-
- Posts: 4249
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
I think you're right, except about the part about it not being cut-and-dried. The fire is pretty unarguably a superseding cause. It's neither a foreseeable consequence nor an unforeseeable consequence in a foreseeable manner.mths wrote:Haha I'm just saying that to get over the "intentional tort" speed bump, you could argue that the fire (act of god) was a superceding cause just like another int. tort or act of negligence would be. I don't think the issue is cut and dry at all and you could definitely argue the other side pretty well.Renzo wrote:This makes my head spin.mths wrote:Here is my take:kalvano wrote:Is it reasonably foreseeable? I wouldn't think so.
Even though A intended to cause the injury and he could reasonably foresee that his battery would send B to the hospital, can't you still argue that the injuries sustained in the hospital are third party intervention? I mean, acts of God aren't recoverable and it seems unjust and over deterrence to hold A liable for something not only not reasonably forseeable but also not a proximate result of his actions. Like, it would be different if A got beat up in the hospital by someone so why, by the same measure, can you not include a fire in that category?
- kalvano
- Posts: 11951
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
mths wrote:To argue the other side, Putney couldn't reasonably foresee Vosburg's leg falling off. I think intentional torts is much more lenient on the forseeability of the end result and as long as the harm flows uninterrupted from the breach, A should be held liable. This would require arguing that the fire is not an interruption because it is not technically a third party act.
Vosburg wouldn't apply. This isn't an Eggshell Rule case. B wasn't a genetic mutant prone to start fires from nothing when battered and put in the hospital. If he was, then A would have to take B as he was.
The harm was interrupted. By the ambulance ride, the doctor visits, etc.
- mths
- Posts: 1098
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:24 am
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
I still hold that it's not cut and dried. If the tort was a negligent act, it would be. Since it's intentional, there is room for debate.Renzo wrote: I think you're right, except about the part about it not being cut-and-dried. The fire is pretty unarguably a superseding cause. It's neither a foreseeable consequence nor an unforeseeable consequence in a foreseeable manner.
- mths
- Posts: 1098
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:24 am
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
You're right, Vosburg is out of place there I was just trying to make the point that in intentional torts, the harm doesn't always have to be foreseeable in order for the defendant to be liable.kalvano wrote:mths wrote:To argue the other side, Putney couldn't reasonably foresee Vosburg's leg falling off. I think intentional torts is much more lenient on the forseeability of the end result and as long as the harm flows uninterrupted from the breach, A should be held liable. This would require arguing that the fire is not an interruption because it is not technically a third party act.
Vosburg wouldn't apply. This isn't an Eggshell Rule case. B wasn't a genetic mutant prone to start fires from nothing when battered and put in the hospital. If he was, then A would have to take B as he was.
The harm was interrupted. By the ambulance ride, the doctor visits, etc.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- kalvano
- Posts: 11951
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
mths wrote:I still hold that it's not cut and dried. If the tort was a negligent act, it would be. Since it's intentional, there is room for debate.Renzo wrote: I think you're right, except about the part about it not being cut-and-dried. The fire is pretty unarguably a superseding cause. It's neither a foreseeable consequence nor an unforeseeable consequence in a foreseeable manner.
Not really, not for something like a freak fire.
If the attending ER physician had been an idiot and caused B to die, then you could have a case against A.
- mths
- Posts: 1098
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:24 am
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
That's exactly when you wouldn't have a case.kalvano wrote:mths wrote:I still hold that it's not cut and dried. If the tort was a negligent act, it would be. Since it's intentional, there is room for debate.Renzo wrote: I think you're right, except about the part about it not being cut-and-dried. The fire is pretty unarguably a superseding cause. It's neither a foreseeable consequence nor an unforeseeable consequence in a foreseeable manner.
Not really, not for something like a freak fire.
If the attending ER physician had been an idiot and caused B to die, then you could have a case against A.
-
- Posts: 4249
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
Why? I've never heard an argument that whether a superseding cause breaks the causal chain depends on whether the origina tort was negligent or intentional.mths wrote:I still hold that it's not cut and dried. If the tort was a negligent act, it would be. Since it's intentional, there is room for debate.Renzo wrote: I think you're right, except about the part about it not being cut-and-dried. The fire is pretty unarguably a superseding cause. It's neither a foreseeable consequence nor an unforeseeable consequence in a foreseeable manner.
- kalvano
- Posts: 11951
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
mths wrote:You're right, Vosburg is out of place there I was just trying to make the point that in intentional torts, the harm doesn't always have to be foreseeable in order for the defendant to be liable.
There's a big difference between something that happens as a direct result of your action, even if it couldn't be foreseen, and harm that comes from something that is completely unrelated to what you did.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- mths
- Posts: 1098
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:24 am
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
haha just trying to make a counterargument guys, I made the other one first. There's always a counterargument.kalvano wrote:mths wrote:You're right, Vosburg is out of place there I was just trying to make the point that in intentional torts, the harm doesn't always have to be foreseeable in order for the defendant to be liable.
There's a big difference between something that happens as a direct result of your action, even if it couldn't be foreseen, and harm that comes from something that is completely unrelated to what you did.
- kalvano
- Posts: 11951
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
mths wrote:That's exactly when you wouldn't have a case.kalvano wrote:mths wrote:I still hold that it's not cut and dried. If the tort was a negligent act, it would be. Since it's intentional, there is room for debate.Renzo wrote: I think you're right, except about the part about it not being cut-and-dried. The fire is pretty unarguably a superseding cause. It's neither a foreseeable consequence nor an unforeseeable consequence in a foreseeable manner.
Not really, not for something like a freak fire.
If the attending ER physician had been an idiot and caused B to die, then you could have a case against A.
Do what now?
- mths
- Posts: 1098
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:24 am
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
If the attending physician caused B to die then B would have a case against the physician, not A...kalvano wrote: Do what now?
-
- Posts: 7921
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
You play a good devils avocadomths wrote:haha just trying to make a counterargument guys, I made the other one first. There's always a counterargument.kalvano wrote:mths wrote:You're right, Vosburg is out of place there I was just trying to make the point that in intentional torts, the harm doesn't always have to be foreseeable in order for the defendant to be liable.
There's a big difference between something that happens as a direct result of your action, even if it couldn't be foreseen, and harm that comes from something that is completely unrelated to what you did.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:18 pm
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
You would still have a case against both, if the accident caused B to go to the hospital. It is foreseeable for malpractice to happen at a hospital (however scary that sounds). Now, if the physician was intentionally harming B. . .mths wrote:If the attending physician caused B to die then B would have a case against the physician, not A...kalvano wrote: Do what now?
- kalvano
- Posts: 11951
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
mths wrote:If the attending physician caused B to die then B would have a case against the physician, not A...kalvano wrote: Do what now?
TLS needs a facepalm smiley.
-
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:18 pm
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
we still have /facepalm.
- GoodToBeTheKing
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:34 pm
Re: real quick ? about intentional torts liability
dudnaito wrote:if A batters B, and B goes to hospital, and freak fire happens, then A is not liable for B's fire-incurred injuries, and the hospital is not held negligible either, so does that mean that B cannot recover at all even though A's action is a clear example of cause in fact under "but-for" test... i know it doesn't pass proximate cause, but there seems to be an issue of justice here, or am i just soft?
if A batters B he is liable for all of the damages that occurred from that battery, even those that are unforeseen. I am not sure why you are even bringing in the but-for test, proximate cause, etc. because this is not a negligence case.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login