Top Law Schools

if A intentionally throws a rock at B and B sees it coming and it hits him, that's two intentional torts: assault and battery

but can you also say that's negligence?
duty: to be reasonable and not throw rocks
breach: he threw the rock.
causation: but-for and proximate
damages: medical bills

1. Are you a 0l?
2. No. Just as murder can't be negligent homicide.
Negligence means a lack of, or an inability to prove, a more culpable mental state.

also it's just one intentional tort. battery.

lacrossebrother wrote:also it's just one intentional tort. battery.

Actually, there are two torts in the hypo: assault in battery. B saw the rocking coming towards him, and thus, he was in apprehension of imminent harmful contact.

ditch digger wrote:

lacrossebrother wrote:also it's just one intentional tort. battery.

Actually, there are two torts in the hypo: assault in battery. B saw the rocking coming towards him, and thus, he was in apprehension of imminent harmful contact.

ok i actually have no idea how this works. it doesn't really matter since you won't be able to recover for both. but negligence & intentional torts are indeed importantly distinct because of vicarious liability & indemnification issues.

I mean, allege all possible claims that arnt frivolous. I think you could allege all three. Why not?

unclej wrote:if A intentionally throws a rock at B and B sees it coming and it hits him, that's two intentional torts: assault and battery

but can you also say that's negligence?
duty: to be reasonable and not throw rocks
breach: he threw the rock.
causation: but-for and proximate
damages: medical bills

lacrossebrother wrote: ok i actually have no idea how this works. it doesn't really matter since you won't be able to recover for both. but negligence & intentional torts are indeed importantly distinct because of vicarious liability & indemnification issues.

My torts professor once said that because most jurisdictions have a longer statute of limitations for negligence claims (as opposed to intentional torts which typically require filing within 1-2 years of the incident), many plaintiffs allege that the act was done negligently, rather than intentionally, and you get the effect of pleadings in which the defendant argues "no, i meant to do it!"

I'm assuming similar cases arise from time to time based on the issues lacrossebro brings up

That's not to say it can be intentional and negligent at the same time, there's a different inquiry into the state of mind, or lack of inquiry. Negligence was developed to cover situations where intent was not present but there is a deviation from some standard of care that we as a society feel should be compensated. So what I'm saying is that you could say battery and assumt but to the extent you cannot prove requisite intent, it was a deviation from standard of care. It cannot be negligence and an intentional tort at the same time in my opinion.

Nah

timmyd wrote:I mean, allege all possible claims that arnt frivolous. I think you could allege all three. Why not?

You can. If you can't prove intent, you can fallback on negligence.

I think the point being made earlier is that the OP specifically said that it is intentional.

EDIT: Whoops, just realized that's a rhetorical question haha.

runinthefront wrote:

unclej wrote:if A intentionally throws a rock at B and B sees it coming and it hits him, that's two intentional torts: assault and battery

but can you also say that's negligence?
duty: to be reasonable and not throw rocks
breach: he threw the rock.
causation: but-for and proximate
damages: medical bills

lacrossebrother wrote: ok i actually have no idea how this works. it doesn't really matter since you won't be able to recover for both. but negligence & intentional torts are indeed importantly distinct because of vicarious liability & indemnification issues.

My torts professor once said that because most jurisdictions have a longer statute of limitations for negligence claims (as opposed to intentional torts which typically require filing within 1-2 years of the incident), many plaintiffs allege that the act was done negligently, rather than intentionally, and you get the effect of pleadings in which the defendant argues "no, i meant to do it!"

I'm assuming similar cases arise from time to time based on the issues lacrossebro brings up

Yea, I've read some cases about that. And it can be dismissed if they determine that it was an intentional tort and the plaintiff is only alleging negligence to get around the statute of limitations.