Intentional Interference With Person or Property A. Intent 2 types 1. Specific Intent consciously desiring the physical result 2. General Intent knowledge that the result is substantially certainty to follow -The Restatement places torts somewhat on a continuum with Negligence The most culpable form of intent would be a specific intent, or morally apprehensible form of misconduct you swing a baseball bat to hit someone in the face General intent would be next on the continuum knowing with substantial certainty Recklessness- Callous disregard ( I dont give a crap. Gross Negligence- aware of the harm but you are indifferent to it Negligence- foreseeable risk of harm but you fail to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances Most culpable (responsible/punishable)
Least culpable (-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------( Specific General Recklessness Gross Negligence Negligence Garratt v. Dailey five year old Dailey pulled a chair out from under an elderly woman (Garratt) resulting in several injuries trial court held no battery because Dailey did not possess specific intent (consciously desiring the physical result) to play a prank or cause harm Appellate Court remanded the case to the trial court to consider if Daileys behavior had met the requisites for general intent (knowledge with a substantial certainty that pulling the chair out from under plaintiff would cause harm). They need to look at the law. Only relevance defendants age has is as it may affect the extent of ones knowledge Fromenthal v. Clark 2 year old not liable for biting an infant because court said too young to form intent Court said intent does not require bad motives, it only requires a volitional act performed with knowledge that there is a substantive certainty that bodily contact will occur Restatement of the court places intentional torts on a continuum with negligence Spivey v. Battaglia defendant gave shy co-worker plaintiff a friendly, unsolicited hug which paralyzed her face court held no battery because defendant could not be said to know with substantial certainty that such bizarre results would follow his conduct (may be negligence) Defendant admitted to Battery because of offensive conduct however he used the defense stating the statute of limitations had run out The Supreme Court, found that the intent element for battery, was not there because one could not be substantially certain that the bizarre results, paralysis, would follow but really, all that should have mattered was that the hug was offensive and was meant to embarrass the plaintiff Because the statute of limitations barred the cause of action for a battery, and the S.Ct. wanted the plaintiff to recover for their injuries, they held defendant responsible for negligence Ranson v. Kitner Kitner mistakenly shot Ransons dog thinking it was a wolf (trespass to chattel claim) Court held Kitner liable because good faith or mistake does not negate intent A mistake, unlike an accident, does not change the intentional nature of a tort McGuire v. Almy Defendant was an insane person who struck her caretaker with a chair leg when she entered her room defendant held liable as mental illness does not negate intent Insane persons are liable for their intentional torts as long as they had the required intent (specific or general) of a sane person All that is needed is that the person know with substantial certainty that the volitional act intended the result that would follow What if the defendant thought the plaintiff was trying to kill/hurt her (Motivation irrelevant, she still intended to hit her. intent could arise from delusion or another consequence of the illness as long as the act was voluntary defendant is liable Talmage v. Smith Defendant threw a stick in the direction of some boys who were sitting on the roof of his sheds but instead he missed and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document