Transferred Intent Notes
Talmage v. Smith, Supreme Judicial Court of MI, 1894
Facts
D threw a stick at one of two boys as they were coming down of D’s sheds. The stick missed the intended boy and hit his companion (P’s son). The stick hit P’s son in the eye causing him to loose sight in that eye.
Procedure
P recovered in an action of trespass. D seems to object to the Jury charge.
Issue
Was D liable for trespass even though he did not mean to hit P?
Law
A person is liable if: 1. he intended harm for one person but the harm was inflicted on another, AND 2. he used unreasonable force under the circumstances A person is not liable if: 1. he did not mean to harm one person but ended up harming another, OR 2. (he intended to hit one person AND 3. the force was reasonable, warranted, and not excessive under the circumstances)
Reasoning
The judge’s charge was an accurate representation of the law. (The jury found that D was liable because they found that D was liable, since the evidence seemed to convince them that D meant to harm one person (he threw the stick at Byron) and that he used unreasonable force: the kids were already coming down and there was no reason to throw the stick at them)
Holding
Judgment affirmed.
D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\691b1669-2c93-4e5d-804a-aa324c6e67ab.doc