Intentional Torts – 1. Intent
Elements
‐ Purpose to make a
contact
‐ Knowledge with
substantial certainty
(that such contact to be
produced)
‐ ANY contact
Case
Garrat v.
Dailey
(pulling chair)
Wagner v.
State
(mad man
beats)
Talmage v.
Smith
(boy on the
roof)
McGuire v.
Almy
(mad woman
striking)
Relevant facts
D acted lack of
purpose and it is
not clear whether
or not there was
knowledge with
substantial
certainty.
He acted with a
purpose to cause
a contact but he
didn’t have a
specific purpose
to make a harmful
contact.
D acted, had a
purpose to
contact, and
harmful contact
occurred.
Issue/Holding
Can one conclude that there’s
no battery, if one has only
clearly found one element of
the intent?
 Should fulfill both two
elements to be negative.
D had a purpose
to make a
contact.
Insanity doesn’t matter in all
intentional Torts.
Harmful contact?
Intent is established with a
purpose or knowledge with
substantial certainty to make
ANY contact.
If there is ‘act, intent, contact’,
then it’s battery.
Ranson v.
Kitner
(mistake dog)



Notes
Act: voluntariness / contact:
interference with physical
integrity
It was entirely
D had a purpose to make a
reasonable that
contact, then there is intent.
the dog
resembled
wolves.
Only trial courts can decide factual questions (issues).
Jury only gives a verdict (criminal: guilty or innocent; private: liable or not liable).
Judgment says “with costs”: losing side pays the court cost (even though it’s cheap).
<Transferred intent>
Intent in one kind of Torts
transfers to other types of 5
Torts:
1. Battery
2. Assault
3. False imprisonment
4. Trespass to land
5. Trespass to chattels
<Distributive justice>
Insane person v. innocent
person. On whom the burden of
recovery should fall? Burden
should fall on who caused it.
This is a trespass case.
Intentional Torts – 2. Battery
Elements
Case
Relevant facts
Issue/Holding
‐ Act: voluntary
Cole v. Turner
The least touching of another in anger
‐ Intent: purpose to make
(1704)
is a battery.
any contact / knowledge
(dictum)
with substantial
Wallace v. Rosen
Fire drill + all facts, Contact is offensive if it would be
certainty
(teacher touching neither harmful or considered offensive by a reasonable
‐ Contact: harmful /
the back)
offensive
person of ordinary sensibilities.
offensive (substantial
Fisher v. Carrousel Anything
Forceful dispossession of someone’s
interference of
Motor Hotel, Inc.
connected to the
hand in an offensive manner is
someone’s bodily
(snatching the
P’s person
sufficient to constitute a battery.
integrity
plate)
 Intentional torts protect minimum bodily integrity.
 Battery, assault, and false imprisonment: different in ‘harmful contact.’ The rests are the same.
 Bee buzzing, push person ‐> battery
 Drunk drive, 1/3 chance ‐> not battery. It’s negligence.
Notes
Exception of
battery
Eggshell skull rule:
“all damages”
Rest. 13. Battery: Harmful Contact
An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
(a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent
apprehension of such a contact, and
(b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.
1