CHAPTER 1 – FIVE FORMS OF LIABILITY FOR PHYSICAL HARM
SECTION A: INTENTIONAL HARMING
*Garratt v. Dailey
When a minor has committed a tort with force he is liable to be proceeded against as any other person would be.
An act which, directly or indirectly, is the legal cause of a harmful contact with another’s person makes the actor liable to the other, if:
the act is done with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension thereof to the other or third person, and
the contact is not consented to by the other’s consent thereto is procured by fraud or duress, and
the contact is not otherwise privileged.
The act must be done for the purpose of causing the contact or apprehension or with knowledge on the part of the actor that such contact or apprehension is substantially certain to be produced
– a battery would be proven if when Dailey moved the chair, he knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair had been
CHAPTER 2 – BATTERY: ANATOMY OF AN INTENTIONAL TORT
SECTION A: HARM
*White v. University of Idaho
– A professor demonstrated the movements a pianist would make on a piano by acting it out on the back of plaintiff.
– Plaintiff suffered very harmful injuries as a result of the demonstration
Issue: Does the intent element in battery refer to the intention to commit the touching or the intent to harm or offend the victim by the action?
On appeal, the court found that the professor had intent to touch her but not intent to harm her so they found in favor of the defendant.
*in a prima facie battery case you do not need to prove the harm or damage. The damages need to be proved in order to collect money but not to actually prove the case.
Intentional torts is the only part of torts that we expect to see punitive damages. Negligence and the like normally don’t have punitive damages.
You can transfer intent in battery (doctrine of transferred intent). So if I throw a ball at John and it hits Ant, he can still sue me although I only wanted to hit John.
*Ellis v. D’Angelo
– four year old child pushed over babysitter causing injuries
– she seeks damages on 3 counts: battery, negligence, negligence of parents for not warning the babys
ing or didn’t know what he was doing was wrong, so as to bring this case within M’Naughten’s rules, as applied to criminal law. It is more in accord with reason to allow immunity from the civil consequences of the tort of assault committed by a person so insane that it would establish a criminal defense.
WHICH IS THE MAJORITY BETWEEN THESE TWO? INSANITY IN TORTS?
*Polmatier v. Russ
– defendant, suffering from a severe case of paranoid schizophrenia, shot and killed the plaintiff.
– In criminal proceedings, found not guilty by reason of insanity
– Civil trial court found in favor of plaintiff
Judgment: affirmed for plaintiff
Reasoning: the majority of jurisdictions that have considered this issue have held insane persons liable for their intentional torts. Where one of two innocent persons should suffer loss from an act done, it should be the one who committed the act.
Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co.