Torts
February2,2016
Prof.Duncan
Hypo2-2–Romeov.Driver
ReadthefactsofHypo2-2onpp.49-50inyourcasebook.EvaluatewhetherDriverhas
committedabatteryagainstRomeo.Usetheattachedsheettooutlineyouranswer.
Issue
Rule
WhetherDriverhascommittedabatteryagainstRomeo?
subI
subR
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
subA
subC subI
subR
subA
subC Conclusion
Hypo2-2–Romeov.Driver(pp.49-50)
Issue
Rule
WhetherDriverhascommittedabatteryagainstRomeo?
Abatteryhasbeencommittedwhenoneintentionallycausesharmfuloroffensive
contacttothepersonofanother.
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
subI
WhetherDriveractedwiththerequisiteintentforabattery?
subR
Intentforabatteryactionrequiresproofthatthedefendantactedwitheitherthe
desiretobringaboutaharmfuloroffensivecontacttothepersonofanother(specific
intent)orwithknowledgetoasubstantialcertaintythataharmfuloroffensive
contacttothepersonofanotherwouldresult(generalintent).
subA ThefactsrevealthatDriverknewthattherewasachanceofapersonbeingbelow
thebridge,ashelookedcarefullyoverthesidetoseeif"anyone"wasbelow.Driver
knowsthathisvisionisobscuredbecauseofitissodarkout.Healsoknowsthathe
wasemptyingalargeamountofliquidhumanwasteoverthesideofthebridge,
liquidthat,ifitweretocomeintocontactwithaperson,wouldoffendareasonable
senseofpersonaldignity.Knowingallofthis,Driverpouredtheliquidintothe
darknessbelow.
Basedonthesefacts,PlaintiffRomeocouldarguethatDriverknewtoasubstantial
certaintythatthecontentsofthecanisterswouldcomeintocontactwithaperson
below,thereforeestablishingDriver'sgeneralintenttocommitabattery.Asonly
proofofeitherspecificorgeneralintentisrequired,Romeowouldarguethatintent
forabatteryhasbeenestablishedbyprovingsuchgeneralintent,eventhoughDriver
didnotfortheliquidcomeintocontactwithaperson(whichwouldprovespecific
intent).Inresponse,Drivermightarguethathedidnotknowtoasubstantial
certaintythattheliquidwouldcontactapersonbelow,butratheronlywasawareof
ariskthattheliquidwouldcontactapersonbelow.Awarenessofonlyarisk(not
amountingtoknowledgetoasubstantialcertainty)wouldbeinsufficienttoestablish
intentinsupportofabatteryaction.
subC AlthoughDriverdidnothavethespecificintenttoestablishabattery,thefactsseem
tosuggestthatDriverhadgeneralintent,knowledgetoasubstantialcertaintythat
harmfuloroffensivecontactwouldresultfromhisactofthrowingtheliquid
overboard.SuchgeneralintentwouldprovethatDriverhadtherequisiteintentto
commitabattery.
subI
WhetherthecontactoftheliquidwithRomeo’sbodyamountedtoaharmfulor
offensivecontactsufficienttosupportabatteryaction?
subR
Batterycanbeprovenbyproofofeitherharmfuloroffensivecontact.Harmful
contactiscontactwiththepersonofanotherthatcausesphysicalpain,impairment,
orillness.Offensivecontactiscontactwithanother'spersonthatwouldoffenda
reasonablesenseofpersonaldignity.Batterydoesnotrequirethatthedefendant’s
bodyactuallycomeintocontactwiththeplaintiffbody,butrequiresonlythatthe
defendantputintomotionthechainofeventthatresultedineitherharmfulor
offensivecontact.
subA Romeowasdrenchedinliquidhumanwaste,andasbeingdrenchedinhumanwaste
wouldlikelyoffendareasonablesenseofpersonaldignity,Romeowouldlikelyhave
littleproblemestablishingthathewascontactedinanoffensivemanner.Drivermay
arguethatRomeowasnotinfactharmedbybeingdrenchedintheliquid,butthat
argumentwouldlikelyfailasRomeoneedsonlytoestablisheitheraharmfulor
offensivecontact,notboth.Romeowouldlikelybeabletopersuadeafactfinderthat
beingdousedinliquidwasteconstitutedanoffensivecontact.
DrivermayarguethatDrivernevertouchedRomeo.However,suchargumentwould
beimmaterialtothebatteryactioninasmuchasDriver'svolitionalactsetinto
motionthechainofeventsthatresultedinthegrossliquidsplashingontoRomeo.
TheliquidcontactedRomeo,whichwascertainlyanoffensivecontact.
subC ItseemslikelythatRomeosuffered,ataminimum,anoffensivecontactandsuch
contactwouldbesufficienttosupporthisbatteryactionagainstDriver.
Conclusion
AlthoughprovingthatDriveractedwiththerequisiteintenttocommitabattery
mightbechallenging,RomeolikelyhasaviablebatteryactionagainstRomeoas
DriverintentionallycausedanoffensivecontactwithRomeo’sperson.