Battery: Day

1
Battery Day 2
2
Recap

• Intent to cause h.c/o.c/imminent app of either.
• Harmful contact / caused by Ds/ act
• no privilege

3
Rule about intent

• Prob. 3
• Prob. 4
• Prob. 5
• Prob. 6 -not done

4
Prob. 6 (Pauls v K-head)

• What exactly must Paula prove that K intended?
• How do we know what an ordinary person would find
  offensive?
• Is this a fair test?
• Yes--unreasonable not to know norms would
  privilege insensitive people
• No---not intentional offense just ignorant

5
Prob. 6 -Advanced Variation

• What if K knew that Paula found his antics very
  offensive, perhaps because of her past personal
  experiences.
• Is the test now subjective (did he desire or know
  with substantial certainty that he would offend
  her?)

6
Battery Day 3
7
Garratt v. Dailey (Wash. 1955)

• Facts
• Trial court outcome? Why?
• Holding on appeal?
• What is trial court supposed to determine on
  remand?
• If Brian knew, is he liable even if he was not
  trying to hurt her? Why/not?

8
Remand

• What happened?
• Why does that seem odd?

9
What mental states legal intent?

• 1.
• 2.

10

• Intent
• desire to cause or
• knowledge with substantial certainty that you are
  going to cause
• harmful contact,
• offensive contact, or
• imminent apprehension of either
• to P or a third party (transferred intent)

11
Prob. 1 (p. 27) -Limits of Intent

• Courts do not ordinarily the use of BATTERY in
  these cases.
• Why not?
• Harmful contact?
• Intent?
• Desire?
• Knowledge with substantial certainty?
• Would any part of the car be safe enough to avoid
  B?

12
Syllabus Problems

• A. Al aims at bottles hits kids
• B. Al shoots beyond his range.
• C. Al hits Tina instead
• See RS Section 18, p. 12.
• Introduction to Tort Policy is liability wise?
• D. Age?

13
Introduction to Policy Transferred Intent

• Move here next year

14
Liability of Minors

• Can a child be liable for intentional tort?
• Desire?
• Knowledge with substantial certainty?

15
Parents of Minors

• Not automatically vicariously liable at c/l
• Statutes impose minor liability.
• Courts will hold parents liable for OWN tortious
  conduct.
• Example letting troubled child have access to
  family guns. (may be negligent).

16
Exploring Contact

• Contact?
• Harmful?
• Offensive?

17
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor...

• Alleged battery?
• Trial verdict?
• First appeal outcome?
• Current appeal outcome?
• Issues on appeal?
• Holdings?

18
Fisher - 2

• What contact with Fisher?
• Why is that sufficient?
• What about?
• His tie?
• His briefcase?
• His car?
• His parking space?

19
The Restatement View

• So closely connected to P that ordinary person
  would regard it as part of her personality
  huh?
• Defendant regards it as so much a part of Ps
  personality that she feels she can achieve her
  goal of giving offense.

20
Fisher - again

• Any battery if no contact?
• Why require contact?
• Any other cause of action if no contact?
• Assault?
• Other?

21
Day 4
22
Introduction to Tort Policy Intent

• Transferred intent
• noninstrumental rationales?
• Instrumental?
• Administrative concerns?

23
More on contact

• What if P is unaware at the time of the
  touching?
• Physician takes does hysterectomy without consent
  while patient is under anesthesia for different
  abdominal surgery?
• Sleeping student is kissed by silent admirer?

24
Still more on contact

• What if P is contacted by
• Cigarette smoke?
• Bus fumes?
• Pesticide spray?
• Bad breath?
• Boom box noise?
• Air pollution?
• Laser pointer?

25
Liechtman (Ohio App. 1994)

• Facts?
• Trial court?
• App. Ct.?
• Why?
• Contact?

26
McCracken (N.C. 1979)

• Why a different outcome in this case?
• What would Ohio do in this case?
• Own office?
• Substantial certainty? Why reluctant?

27
Prob. 34