I. Introduction to the Torts Process: Liability for Harmful and Offensive Battery
A. Some General Observations
Tort law is part of the common law. The common law of torts may be arranged analytically under three major headings:
Intentional torts
Negligence
Strict Liability
B. A Preliminary Look at the Adjudicatory Process
Once a lawyer is consulted the first step in the process is for the lawyer to listen to the client’s story
Lawyer must assess the potential merit
There are three types of money damages that a plaintiff might be able to recover:
Nominal: A small amount, about a dollar Used to establish as a matter of public record that the defendant has wronged the plaintiff even if no actual harm occurred.
Compensatory: Damages reflect the harm actually suffered. Hospital expenses as well as compensation for pain and suffering.
Punitive: Designed to punish the defendant for wrongdoing. Usually awarded only if the defendant is found to have acted with malice or with reckless indifference.
Next the lawyer will file a complaint containing the plaintiff’s claim for relief and a short statement of the facts upon which the claim is based.
After being served with the complaint the defendant usually has 20 days to file an answer with the court to either admit or deny the allegations.
On most issues of fact in a torts case, the plaintiff has the burden of proof, or burden of persuasion.
C. The Substantive Law Governing Liability for Battery
1. The Prima Facie Case
Elements for a Battery
An act by defendant,
With intent to inflict harmful or offensive touching,
A harmful or offensive touching,
And Causation.
a. Intent
Restatement: Battery Harmful Contact
An Actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
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
A harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly
Restatement Offensive Contact
An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
He acts intending to cause
not questions of law. The advantage of a special verdict is that when a defendant wants to appeal, the defendant can appeal the judge’s error of law whereas a defendant cannot as easily appeal a jury’s finding of fact.
The main point of the Vosburg Case is that:
Intent can be inferred from the context, circumstances, as well as what society thinks that the rules should be in such situations.
Foreseeability is used as a defense not as to the responsibility as to the extent of damages, but rather proximate cause, the remoteness of the plaintiff’s claim.
Garrat v. Dailey, (Kid pulls a chair out from under the plaintiff.)
A minor who commits a tort with force, is liable to be proceeded against as any other person would be.
Under the restatement intent can be one of either two things:
The act must be done for the purpose of causing the contact or apprehension; or
