Torts Outline
Battery
§ 13. Battery: Harmful Contact
An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
(a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact OR
Offensive contact with the person of the other or third person OR
An imminent apprehension of such contact, AND
(b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results
§ 18. Battery: Offensive Contact
(1) An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
(a) He acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
(2) An act which is not done with the intention stated in Subsection (1,a) does not make the actor liable to the other for a mere offensive contact with the other’s person although the act involves an unreasonable risk of inflicting it and therefore, would be negligent or reckless if the risk threatened bodily harm.
Battery Elements:
1. Act
2. Intent
3. Causation
4. Injury
1. Act- it’s a given, but should determine if it’s voluntary or involuntary
Voluntary example: Dailey pulling the chair away from Garratt.
Involuntary example: A person having a seizure, involuntary reflexes.
2. Intent-
(i.) Purpose to cause harmful or offensive contact or apprehension. OR
(ii.) Knowledge with substantial certainty- more than grave risk that harmful or offensive contact will be produced.
(a.) A child can have intent (Garrett v. Dailey)
1. Experience
2. Child
3. Understanding
Compared to the average child of the same age used in the objective standard.
Policy:
This objective standard works for the legal system (Fairness Policy) because different defendants can get the same fair trial. If not, then there would be an inconsistency in court decisions and most defendant’s would plea that a child is not capable of committing battery, which would also make the court waste time and money by bringing in experts to test capabilities. If it was subjective, then one of the parties can believe the ct. was being biased. Also, to avoid bringing the experts and the battle of the experts and saves time and money. (Adminstrability). Secures compensation for the victim by the wrongdoer. (Social Policy).
(b.) Insane person can be held liable for intentional torts
1. Capable of entertaining intent AND
2. If they entertained it in fact
Capable of entertaining intent:
(i.) Act/conduct- i.e. pick up a piece of furniture and striking plaintiff (McGuire v. Almy).
(ii.) Words- i.e. “If you come into this room I’ll kill you”
(iii.) Objective standard- a reasonable person looking at the person’s actions and words (McGuire v. Almy & Garratt v. Dailey).
If they entertained it in fact:
Fairness Policy
(1a.) If an insane person can pay and they’re financially able
(1b.) If an insane person can pay, then liable for damage caused
(2.) Makes the defendant’s family member more watchful
Social Policy
One reason why an insane person is held liable is so a person wouldn’t do whatever he/she wanted and hold a family member liable as well. But if the person is not liable, then the family member will not be liable either. And if defendant is liable, then he/she can run and do whatever he/she wants and there’s no incentive for anyone to work for the defendant since there is no compensation. The family member is held liable or negligent, which make the family member more responsible and watchful.
Adminstrability Policy
This rule of examining mental capacity is too difficult because of time and money and it is easier not to administer it and hold her to a normal person standard and also helps the criminal courts avoid examining a defendant’s mental capacity.
1. Courts like easy rules. (1. Supports interpretation)
2. Adopting standard is easy because court does not have to rely on experts with conflicting results. (2. Explain)
3. In this case, it is easier to compare defendant to a normal person, words, and actions. Defendant said “don’t come over here or I’ll kill you.”(3. Connect back to the rule & give examples).
(c.) Intent can be transferred
It doesn’t work to intend to hit someone and the person misses, which causes them this person to hit someone else because the intent transfers ov
mminent battery, coupled with the apparent present ability to effectuate the attempt, if not prevented.
· Assault
1. Act- some sort of seemingly harmful or offensive action on the part of the defendant.
2. Intent-
i. Purpose to cause harmful or offensive contact or apprehension. OR
ii. Knowledge with substantial certainty- more than grave risk that harmful or offensive contact will be produced.
o Based on experience, capacity, and understanding, just as in battery
o Constructive knowledge: knew or “should have known”
3. Causation- Act must directly or indirectly lead to the injury, just like battery
4. Injury- an imminent apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact with the person of another or 3d person.
You make something imminent by a person holding a rock and walking closer to me and that person says “I am going to hit you with this rock”
Injury- an imminent apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact with the person of another or 3d person
· Imminent apprehension
1. Well-founded- based on surrounding circumstances; what a reasonable person would think.
2. Fear- not fear in the literal sense, but apprehension, anticipation, awareness, offensive contact
3. Apparent ability (not actual)- not necessarily actual battery (because then you would have a battery)
4. Present/Imminent ability- Immediate and unpermitted harmful or offensive, immediacy is a necessary factor.
Well-founded- Sapp approaches Hill and Sapp’s words to Hill. So, words and acts. The kind of standard that is used is the objective standard.
Fear- Her fear is that he is going to touch her. It is well founded that her fear is justified by a reasonable person b/c Sapp approaches Hill, Sapp words to Hill, and that Sapp is intoxicated.
