I don't get the intent part of intentional torts.
Yeah, I know the defendant has to "know with substantial certainty" blah blah
I dont know how to ask my question so I will give you an example. for battery: Does the defendant have to intend for the act to be harmful or offensive?
Let's say there is a country where people punch each other in the face to say "hello"
A person in that country moves to the US and he punches me in the face. He did not mean to be offensive or harmful, he was just saying hello. Has he committed battery?
I dont understand intent Forum
- Nova

- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:55 pm
Re: I dont understand intent
pretty sure battery is a general intent offense.
You don't have to intend the harm, just the act
You don't have to intend the harm, just the act
-
vinnnyvincenzo

- Posts: 150
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:05 pm
Re: I dont understand intent
depends on the Jx. if it is dual intent then you have to intend both the action and the result. i.e. intend to touch someone and intend it to be offensive/harmful. single intent is the quoted.Nova wrote:pretty sure battery is a general intent offense.
You don't have to intend the harm, just the act
- lawhopeful10

- Posts: 979
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:29 pm
Re: I dont understand intent
Yea depends on the jurisdiction. Some all you need is intent to touch others you actually need to intend harm.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login