Race
Torts I
Fall 2010
II. INTENT
A. Intent (defined): A state of mind for the consequences of the act. Desires consequences of his act OR knows for a substantial certainty that the consequences of his act will come about.
B. Cases:
1. Garret v. Daily (p.17) Substantial Certainty; Is the actor of an intentional tort required to have intent? The court held that the five year old boy did not desire the woman to fall, but because he knew with substantial certainty that she would fall he is liable for the intentional tort of battery.
2. Spivey v. Batagalia (p.20) Distinguishing Intent from Negligence; Can a person have the intent necessary for an intentional tort even though he does not desire to harm the victim? This case shows the difference between an intentional tort and negligence. The P did not want to be hugged and the D had not intent to harm Spivey when he hugged her. D had no way of reasonably knowing with substantial certainty that be would cause P’s back and neck injury so no intent, but negligence was found.
3. Ranson v. Kitner (p.23) Mistake; Were the men hunting wolves liable for shooting a dog when they had no intent to kill a dog? The court held that because the hunters intended to shoot and kill wolves – they were liable because they had the intent to kill something.
4. McGuire v. Almy (p.24) Insane Persons; Can an insane person for the intent necessary to be held liable for an intentional tort? If the insane person has the capability of forming intent then they can be held liable for the intentional tort. The insane person must have the brain capacity and that is decided by the jury.
5. Tajpiage v. Smith (p. 27) Transferred Intent; Can a person be held liable for an intentional tort when he intends to strike someone else other than the intended victim? The D was trying to get some boys of his shed and threw a stick at them intending to get them off the shed and instead struck another boy he did not see inflicting serious injury. The court held that D intended to hit someone and just because he did not hit the victim intended does not relieve him of any liability to the unintended victim.
.
3. Harmful or offensive touching – the touching must have been harmful or offensive.
4. Causation – the D’s act must have caused the touching.
C. Cases:
1. Cole v. Turner (p.29) Nature of Contact; If two or more people meet in a narrow passage, and without any violence or design of harm, the one touches the other gently it will be no battery.
2. Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc. (p.31) Plaintiff’s person: Body and Things Closely Attached Thereto; Can a person be held liable for a battery even if the P was never physically touched? (This is the plate snatching case) The court held that certain things such as clothes or a cane or anything grasped by the hand has an intimate connection with the body as to be regarded as part of the person. One can be held liable for a battery without ever touching the battered party.
