Art
v Charlie
Art can claim battery in which is a
general intention tort. To succeed in Battery, the claimant must establish that
the defendant’s conduct intentional caused harmful or offensive contact to the
claimant. Restatement (Second) of Torts defines intent to mean that the
defendant desires the act or knows to a substantial certainty that it will
occur. Being a subjective definition, the statement by Charlie to the effect
that he was going to kill Art satisfies the intent requirement as he must have
been aware that shooting would lead to the result that it led to. Besides the
intent, Art must also show that it was Charlie’s act that was the direct or
legal cause of the harmful contact to him. Again, this would not be in dispute
given that it was the bullet shot by Charlie that hit Art in the arm.
Bill
v Charlie
For one, Bill can claim battery on the
part of Charlie by contending that the latter’s conduct intentionally caused
the harmful or offensive contact to him. Under the transferred doctrine, the
intention to commit any of the five intentional torts suffices to establish
intention if another person other than the one to which that initial intention
was directed suffers the harmful or offensive contact. This was the holding in Talmage v Smith (1894). Thus, Bill would
be able to rely on Charlie’s intention to commit battery on Art. Also important
is the fact that battery compensates both physical and psychological harm. It
is, therefore, immaterial that the bullet never hit Bill. It suffices that he
incurred a bill of $ 5,000 for psychological counseling. In terms of causation,
Charlie’s act was directly responsible for the psychological apprehension
experienced by Bill. Bill also has a claim of assault as against Charlie where
need to prove that the latter’s intentional conduct caused him reasonable
apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. The Restatement on the
other hand does not require that the apprehension be reasonable.
Bill
v Art
Bill can claim both battery and assault
as against art. Art’s conduct of using Bill as a shield can be construed to
establish intention. Art could have been substantially aware that using Bill as
a shield against a person who wanted to kill Art could lead to harmful or
offensive contact. It is, however, doubtful whether the court will find the
establishment of intention given that Art’s action can be seen as an accidental
creation of apprehension. The law tends to categorize such cases under the new tort
of negligent infliction of emotional stress.
Charlie
v Art
Charlie can succeed as against Art in a
claim for battery. He only needs to show that Art’s intentional conduct has
caused him the harmful or offensive contact. Intent can be defined either as
desire to cause the result or having substantial certainty that the consequence
will occur. In Lambertson v United States,
it was held that intent to cause contact constituted battery. By picking the
gun from where it was on the ground, Art can be said to have intended to hit
Charlie at the leg. The alternative would be to argue that Art was
substantially certain that the bullet would hit Charlie. It is immaterial that
it could have hit some other part of the body rather than the leg.
0 comments:
Post a Comment