Top Law Schools

Theoretically, if a party is found liable for battery (an intentional tort), was he also being negligent?

Would it be permissible, that after analyzing whether a battery occurred, to look to a second issue of whether the party was also negligent?

They're diff things totally butninsee the argument that it's not acting with reasonable care ro batter someone. But battery is P's better arg bec it gets more $$$$. Intentional torrs are "kicker pays all" from vosburg. There's no issue of but for or harm witgin risk. Ur bro wnr give u battery. Way too easy.

MonsterTRM wrote:Theoretically, if a party is found liable for battery (an intentional tort), was he also being negligent?

Would it be permissible, that after analyzing whether a battery occurred, to look to a second issue of whether the party was also negligent?

I dont think ud ever make that argument. D may. Like if u pointed a gun at me and shot to scare me, its reckless but also battery so id get all harms.

I think of intentional torts as N on steroids, bec battering someone is always neg

uvabro wrote:

MonsterTRM wrote:Theoretically, if a party is found liable for battery (an intentional tort), was he also being negligent?

Would it be permissible, that after analyzing whether a battery occurred, to look to a second issue of whether the party was also negligent?

I dont think ud ever make that argument. D may. Like if u pointed a gun at me and shot to scare me, its reckless but also battery so id get all harms.

I think of intentional torts as N on steroids, bec battering someone is always neg

That would be assault not battery.

So it might not be worth being an independent "issue" section on a final, but it might be a potential counter-argument for D because it reduces D's liability? (If D is able to show N rather than Battery?)

Thanks for the help!

uvabro wrote:They're diff things totally butninsee the argument that it's not acting with reasonable care ro batter someone. But battery is P's better arg bec it gets more $$$$. Intentional torrs are "kicker pays all" from vosburg. There's no issue of but for or harm witgin risk. Ur bro wnr give u battery. Way too easy.

You put it so eloquently.

MonsterTRM wrote:So it might not be worth being an independent "issue" section on a final, but it might be a potential counter-argument for D because it reduces D's liability? (If D is able to show N rather than Battery?)

Thanks for the help!

If the hypo is screaming intentional torts, I'd stick with intentional torts. There's usually no substantive points for trying to fit a negligence argument on facts that really lend themselves to one or more intentional torts. Negligence, by definition, is not intentional conduct. You're free to argue in the alternative, but that's stretching it.

Your counter-argument idea is not clever enough to get you many points. You defend against intentional torts by either (a) attacking the prima facie case or (b) asserting an affirmative defense. You're not going to assert that you were negligent because its tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot on the issue of liability.

There is one factor that can make negligence claims preferable to a P. SOL is usually longer on negligence than intentional torts. For this reason, Ps sometimes try to make an intentional act into a negligent one.

SuperCerealBrah wrote:

uvabro wrote:

MonsterTRM wrote:Theoretically, if a party is found liable for battery (an intentional tort), was he also being negligent?

Would it be permissible, that after analyzing whether a battery occurred, to look to a second issue of whether the party was also negligent?

I dont think ud ever make that argument. D may. Like if u pointed a gun at me and shot to scare me, its reckless but also battery so id get all harms.

I think of intentional torts as N on steroids, bec battering someone is always neg

That would be assault not battery.

nah that's incorrect if u intended just to scare me, but just hit me it becomes battery..... grading is for gangstas, not tortzzzians.

ClubberLang wrote:

uvabro wrote:They're diff things totally butninsee the argument that it's not acting with reasonable care ro batter someone. But battery is P's better arg bec it gets more $$$$. Intentional torrs are "kicker pays all" from vosburg. There's no issue of but for or harm witgin risk. Ur bro wnr give u battery. Way too easy.

You put it so eloquently.

my goal is to become the first justice who writes in slang.

uvabro wrote:

SuperCerealBrah wrote:

uvabro wrote:

MonsterTRM wrote:Theoretically, if a party is found liable for battery (an intentional tort), was he also being negligent?

Would it be permissible, that after analyzing whether a battery occurred, to look to a second issue of whether the party was also negligent?

I dont think ud ever make that argument. D may. Like if u pointed a gun at me and shot to scare me, its reckless but also battery so id get all harms.

I think of intentional torts as N on steroids, bec battering someone is always neg

That would be assault not battery.

nah that's incorrect if u intended just to scare me, but just hit me it becomes battery..... grading is for gangstas, not tortzzzians.

It's assault if it scares you. It's battery if it touches you. If it touches and scares you, it's assault and battery.

^^^

The above

werd. i just figured battery would get more $ so that he'd argue that, not assault unless he was going for NIED damages.

kalvano wrote:
It's assault if it scares you. It's battery if it touches you. If it touches and scares you, it's assault and battery.

Actually, you don't have to be scared for it to be assault. You just have to think a battery is imminent.

uvabro wrote:werd. i just figured battery would get more $ so that he'd argue that, not assault unless he was going for NIED damages.

You mean IIED. The N in NIED is Negligently.....

ColoBoul wrote:

uvabro wrote:werd. i just figured battery would get more $ so that he'd argue that, not assault unless he was going for NIED damages.

You mean IIED. The N in NIED is Negligently.....

yeah we haven't learned it. i figured that if something is intentional it would def satisfy a negligent standard.

Does assault not merge with battery in some juridictions?

rishabhagny wrote:Does assault not merge with battery in some juridictions?

dude, battery is where u touch someone in an unchill way. assault is where u make someone reasonably apprehend they're gonna be touched in an unchill way. Unless the person isn't looking or aware, it is necessary to commit assault in order to batter. However, battery doesn't require knowledge of being touched to make a case. Assault does require knowledge. My guess is the logiczzz is if someone says to u, "Hey, I gave u an urple-nurple last night" u'd be offended, but if someone said "I tried to give u an urple nurplezzzzz but u karate kicked me in ur sleep" u wouldn't be afraid of immmmmediately being nurpled.

I had the same question so I asked my prof...

He said when intent is borderline, talk about it. When intent is crystal clear, it's a waste of your time.