Torts
Talmage v. Smith
Names of Parties: The Court: Supreme Court of Michigan Date: 1894 Cause of Action: battery Facts: A few boys were trespassing on (D) land, playing on the roof of a shed that he owned. The (D) yelled at the boys to get down off the sheds. The (D) said that he threw a stick at one of the two boys that were in his sight but inadvertently struck another boy who was not in his view. As a result the boy lost his sight in the injured eye. Differing Allegations (if any): Prior Procedural History: The judge gave three instructions: 1) That if the (D) really did not see the (P) and if he only intended to frighten the boys, but inadvertently hit one of them, (P) could not recover. 2) That if he did throw it at one of the boys and hit another and that this was a reasonable action, then (P) could not recover 3) Same as but it would not be a reasonable action, then (P) could recover. The jury rendered a verdict for the (P) Rule: Rule of transferred intent: if a person intends to afflict some type of harm of offensive action against another and inflects this action on a separate party than the one intended, then that person is still liable. Issues: Was the throwing of the stick reasonable force or intent to injure? Courts Decision: judgment affirmed. Reasoning: The court ruled that although that he did not mean to hit the (P) that this was a case of transferred intent. Transferred intent is when a person misses their target or intent and hits something else. The (D) is this case was trying to hit another person, and hit the (P) therefore he is liable for the injury not being a reasonable use of force. (Also he is responsible for extended consequences of his actions. Vosburg) Further: The jury in the first case were not given proper instructions. Even if he had only wanted to scare the kids and ended up hitting one, it is still considered battery by transferred intent.