Top Law Schools

I cannot figure this one out.

A golfer and her instructor were playing golf in a foursome when the golfer became very annoyed with critical comments made by the instructor. To show the other golfers in the group how annoyed she was with her instructor, the golfer stood a few yards behind him while the instructor was teeing off and swung a club at him. The instructor, who was focusing on his shot, was not within range of the club but unfortunately the club slipped out of the golfer's hands and struck the instructor in the head, injuring him.

If the instructor brings a battery action against the golfer, will he recover?

I thought so, but the answer says so. I guess this hinges on the fact the golfer did not "intend" to either scare or hit the instructor. That is why it fails battery, but negligence could be used as an alternative. Do I have this right?

The little basic criminal law I remember is that battery is an intentional tort. So, yes, no intent = no battery. But negligence for sure.

could make an argument about 'reasonable certainty of his actions' = intent. but yeah def negligence.

also:

NYSprague wrote:The little basic criminaltortlaw I remember is that battery is an intentional tort. So, yes, no intent = no battery. But negligence for sure.

Lol. I'm gonna stick to stuff I know.

Yeah I thought reasonable certainty that the person would see it and get scared. But Barbri said no.

UndecidedMN wrote:Yeah I thought reasonable certainty that the person would see it and get scared. But Barbri said no.

sounds like youre arguing assault not battery when you say "get scared" which would be a "reasonable apprehension" or something.

just realized this is barprep though. basing what i say on 1L torts. sorry, good luck!

toothbrush wrote:

UndecidedMN wrote:Yeah I thought reasonable certainty that the person would see it and get scared. But Barbri said no.

sounds like youre arguing assault not battery when you say "get scared" which would be a "reasonable apprehension" or something.

just realized this is barprep though. basing what i say on 1L torts. sorry, good luck!

An intent to commit an assault is transferred to the battery when the assaulter accidentally touches the plaintiff.

The issue here is that the defendant didn't intend the plaintiff to see him swinging the club and contemplate it as a threat, so there was no intent/knowledge for assault.

Makes sense because battery is an intentional tort and there wasn't any intent on the instructor's part; it was an ~accident~. Based on what you were thinking too, you knew the fact that the golfer made it a point to stand away from instructor more so than the other golfers b/c of what the instructor was saying was a red herring and irrelevant.