Torts 8.26.05
Cochran Notes:
Rules from Garratt v. Daily 1) Children are liable for their intentional torts. 2) One way that you can show intent is to show purpose to cause harmful or offensive contact. a. These are two independent ways of showing tort 3) A second way of showing intent is showing knowledge to a substantial certainty that contact would occur. 4) Intent to do the act alone is not enough. 5) Whether the contact that is intended is offensive or not is judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in eth (P)’s shoes. Other than that intent is judged as a subject in matter from whether or not the (D) intended or not.
Vosburg v. Putney (P.34) What are the issues of this case? o Would a reasonable person conclude that the resulting injury to Putney would occur by a playful? o What is does “harmful intentions” mean? o Would the kick be classified as an offensive action? The standard for offensive is: from the prospective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s shoes. i.e. Would a kick from a person of this age be found by a reasonable person be found to be offensive? o Should defendants be held liable for preexisting condition? Extended Consequences Rule = Vosberg For what harm is (D) liable Results Substantial Certainty To follow Extended consequences – Vosberg (battery)
Reasonably foreseeable consequences - negligent
Spivey v. Battaglia The difference between McDonald this case is that the action in McDonald knew that he was causing harm and in this one he would not have known that he was doing something to hurt her. In a battery you have to know to a substantial certainty
Why this is negligence is because he is doing something in which he is not trying to cause harm or he could not know the results that would arise, What is the policy of the intentional tort rule?
Spivey Rule: you would have to know the results with a substantial certainty Vosberg: Responsible for extended consequences Courts use the Vosburg rule more. Why did the court in Spivey case reach this conclusion? They probably wanted a recovery for the (P). How else might they have shown this was not a battery? - the (D) was trying to do something playful. If a friend came up to me and I gave them a hug and they ended up hurt is that a battery? - No, there was not harmful or offensive intent. 2) Intent to cause injury is not require but more intent to invade security