Top Law Schools

http://perezhilton.com/2011-11-29-a-rev ... girlfriend


Go.

My torts exam is 120 multiple choice questions. Professor said average is around a 50%

Torts was two years ago, but I'm pretty sure consent is a defense of some sort.

Currently studying for first semester exams...

I believe this would be a battery because it's intentional, there was a touch involved, and it was offensive. As for consent, there are some who say that you are unable to consent to battery, but I think that's a false conclusion. If you are playing a sport and someone is needlessly rough but within the expected bounds of the game, the liability fails because you consented to playing the game and this is an expected harmful touch, even if it's not one within the rules of the game. Therefore, you can consent to a battery. She did give consent to a harmful touch, however the issue turns on whether she knew what she was consenting to. Consent fails if the person was given false or mistaken information about what they were consenting to. Although she signed a form saying that the tattoo design was at the artist's discretion, she was obviously misled into thinking that she would be getting a Narnia tattoo and instead got a poop tattoo. Therefore, the consent was invalid, she suffered a battery, and she should be able to recover damages in court.

If she give consent, there should be no battery. There could be a breach issue here if there is a contract between the two.

intricategirl wrote:Currently studying for first semester exams...

I believe this would be a battery because it's intentional, there was a touch involved, and it was offensive. As for consent, there are some who say that you are unable to consent to battery, but I think that's a false conclusion. If you are playing a sport and someone is needlessly rough but within the expected bounds of the game, the liability fails because you consented to playing the game and this is an expected harmful touch, even if it's not one within the rules of the game. Therefore, you can consent to a battery. She did give consent to a harmful touch, however the issue turns on whether she knew what she was consenting to. Consent fails if the person was given false or mistaken information about what they were consenting to. Although she signed a form saying that the tattoo design was at the artist's discretion, she was obviously misled into thinking that she would be getting a Narnia tattoo and instead got a poop tattoo. Therefore, the consent was invalid, she suffered a battery, and she should be able to recover damages in court.

Was going to say maybe that consent/consideration was also void by Rest. Cont. s16 (intoxication), but from the facts at hand it seems very unlikely that would work. But you're right that there's easily fraudulent misreprepresentation, and thus the K is voidable (rest 162).

But I'm not sure if there is actual battery. Wouldn't the very nature of the battery have to be different from what she agreed to? Like, he punches her?

target wrote:If she give consent, there should be no battery. There could be a breach issue here if there is a contract between the two.

Beat me to it.

To me, this seems akin to medical-related battery, where a patient consented to one type of surgery in one area and received another surgery, like in Mohr v Williams. There's scope of consent issues (she consented to a certain tattoo, but doing another was outside the scope of consent), as well as consent obtained by fraud. I would say it's a battery.

target wrote:If she give consent, there should be no battery. There could be a breach issue here if there is a contract between the two.

First of all, this story has been shown to be fake in a number of places.

But just addressing it as a hypo:

You would be correct that there would be no battery if she gave consent. The argument would com down to a question of whether the accused battery is getting a tattoo (which she consented to) or getting a poop tattoo (which she did not consent to). I think that the court would probably find for her on a claim of battery. This case is analagous to Mohr v. Williams in which a doctor operated on a patient's left ear after receiving permission to operate on the right. In that case the doctor acted in good faith (the left ear was worse off than the right). This case is more flagrant because after receiving permission to do a narnia tattoo, the tattoo artist gave a tattoo of poop.

thelaststraw05 wrote:

target wrote:If she give consent, there should be no battery. There could be a breach issue here if there is a contract between the two.

First of all, this story has been shown to be fake in a number of places.

But just addressing it as a hypo:

You would be correct that there would be no battery if she gave consent. The argument would com down to a question of whether the accused battery is getting a tattoo (which she consented to) or getting a poop tattoo (which she did not consent to). I think that the court would probably find for her on a claim of battery. This case is analagous to Mohr v. Williams in which a doctor operated on a patient's left ear after receiving permission to operate on the right. In that case the doctor acted in good faith (the left ear was worse off than the right). This case is more flagrant because after receiving permission to do a narnia tattoo, the tattoo artist gave a tattoo of poop.

You may be right because we don't know what the consent form actually include and how big the tattoo should be size wise (or do we, I didn't read the whole article?). However, I don't think Mohr v. Williams necessarily applies here. The original intent was to receive a tattoo in the lower back portion, and the ex-boyfriend did just that. The ex-boyfriend didn't conduct any other offensive and harmful contact to any other body parts of her.

target wrote:

thelaststraw05 wrote:

target wrote:If she give consent, there should be no battery. There could be a breach issue here if there is a contract between the two.

First of all, this story has been shown to be fake in a number of places.

But just addressing it as a hypo:

You would be correct that there would be no battery if she gave consent. The argument would com down to a question of whether the accused battery is getting a tattoo (which she consented to) or getting a poop tattoo (which she did not consent to). I think that the court would probably find for her on a claim of battery. This case is analagous to Mohr v. Williams in which a doctor operated on a patient's left ear after receiving permission to operate on the right. In that case the doctor acted in good faith (the left ear was worse off than the right). This case is more flagrant because after receiving permission to do a narnia tattoo, the tattoo artist gave a tattoo of poop.

You may be right because we don't know what the consent form actually include and how big the tattoo should be size wise (or do we, I didn't read the whole article?). However, I don't think Mohr v. Williams necessarily applies here. The original intent was to receive a tattoo in the lower back portion, and the ex-boyfriend did just that. The ex-boyfriend didn't conduct any other offensive and harmful contact to any other body parts of her.

Unfortunately, since the story is fake, there is no consent form to go look at.

I would assume that one typically specifies the tattoo you want. The fact that offensive and harmful content was to the same part of the body doesn't really matter, the question is what she consented to. If it falls outside the consent, I believe it would become battery. There have been some cases involving sports that come out looking like that. Offensive and harmful contact that falls outside of the scope of the sport (e.g. egregious hit long after play ceased in football).

thelaststraw05 wrote:

target wrote:
You may be right because we don't know what the consent form actually include and how big the tattoo should be size wise (or do we, I didn't read the whole article?). However, I don't think Mohr v. Williams necessarily applies here. The original intent was to receive a tattoo in the lower back portion, and the ex-boyfriend did just that. The ex-boyfriend didn't conduct any other offensive and harmful contact to any other body parts of her.

Unfortunately, since the story is fake, there is no consent form to go look at.

I would assume that one typically specifies the tattoo you want. The fact that offensive and harmful content was to the same part of the body doesn't really matter, the question is what she consented to. If it falls outside the consent, I believe it would become battery. There have been some cases involving sports that come out looking like that. Offensive and harmful contact that falls outside of the scope of the sport (e.g. egregious hit long after play ceased in football).

Yeah, scope of consent is a good argument in this case. However, what if the ex-boyfriend argue that since tattoo outcome is not as clear as black and white. Similar to medical operation that can come out one way or another. So, he may be negligent, but not intend to commit battery.

target wrote:

thelaststraw05 wrote:

target wrote:
You may be right because we don't know what the consent form actually include and how big the tattoo should be size wise (or do we, I didn't read the whole article?). However, I don't think Mohr v. Williams necessarily applies here. The original intent was to receive a tattoo in the lower back portion, and the ex-boyfriend did just that. The ex-boyfriend didn't conduct any other offensive and harmful contact to any other body parts of her.

Unfortunately, since the story is fake, there is no consent form to go look at.

I would assume that one typically specifies the tattoo you want. The fact that offensive and harmful content was to the same part of the body doesn't really matter, the question is what she consented to. If it falls outside the consent, I believe it would become battery. There have been some cases involving sports that come out looking like that. Offensive and harmful contact that falls outside of the scope of the sport (e.g. egregious hit long after play ceased in football).

Yeah, scope of consent is a good argument in this case. However, what if the ex-boyfriend argue that since tattoo outcome is not as clear as black and white. Similar to medical operation that can come out one way or another. So, he may be negligent, but not intend to commit battery.

I think that whatever consent (hypothetically, I know this is fake) was given for that tattoo, it was not to have a pile of shit drawn on her back. Consenting to mistakes (the tattoo outcome not being "black and white") is one thing, and probably inside the scope of consent. That could be a negligence case. This is a totally different tattoo, again more akin to Mohr v Williams (battery from unconsented surgery), not just a difference in the outcome. But those points are good to raise on finals, too.

Duke Silver wrote:

target wrote:

thelaststraw05 wrote:

target wrote:
You may be right because we don't know what the consent form actually include and how big the tattoo should be size wise (or do we, I didn't read the whole article?). However, I don't think Mohr v. Williams necessarily applies here. The original intent was to receive a tattoo in the lower back portion, and the ex-boyfriend did just that. The ex-boyfriend didn't conduct any other offensive and harmful contact to any other body parts of her.

Unfortunately, since the story is fake, there is no consent form to go look at.

I would assume that one typically specifies the tattoo you want. The fact that offensive and harmful content was to the same part of the body doesn't really matter, the question is what she consented to. If it falls outside the consent, I believe it would become battery. There have been some cases involving sports that come out looking like that. Offensive and harmful contact that falls outside of the scope of the sport (e.g. egregious hit long after play ceased in football).

Yeah, scope of consent is a good argument in this case. However, what if the ex-boyfriend argue that since tattoo outcome is not as clear as black and white. Similar to medical operation that can come out one way or another. So, he may be negligent, but not intend to commit battery.

I think that whatever consent (hypothetically, I know this is fake) was given for that tattoo, it was not to have a pile of shit drawn on her back. Consenting to mistakes (the tattoo outcome not being "black and white") is one thing, and probably inside the scope of consent. That could be a negligence case. This is a totally different tattoo, again more akin to Mohr v Williams (battery from unconsented surgery), not just a difference in the outcome. But those points are good to raise on finals, too.

yeah it would be as if the doc in Morh sowed a pig ear on the patient and the doc arguing "Well it was the correct ear. I didn't touch any other part of her body."

Even if he defeated battery with consent, she could easily prove negligence/grossneg/recklessness because a reasonable person would not interpret Narnia as a steaming pile of shit. On second thought.... LoL