Tort Law

Actor A is subject to liability to other person B for battery if: 1. A acts; 2. Intending to cause either harmful contact w/ B or contact w/ B that is offensive; 3. A’s act causes such contact

In Leichtman, court held that blowing smoke in another’s face could be battery b/c of the contact b/w particulate matter in smoke and Π

Desire or substantial certainty that there will be contact—in most states that is harmful or offensive. If the intent to commit an act is present, then the intent to commit the injury is present even if you didn’t mean to cause injury
Intent is subjective based on defendant's mindset.

Must be offensive objectively in the community (“an ordinary person not unduly sensitive as to his dignity”)

Victim does not have to be aware (for instance, during surgery.)

This is no defense to intent as long as person capable of forming intent to commit the act that caused the harm.

Defendant knows that eventually this will cause harmful or offensive contact (ex. Deli owner sells hot coffee knowing that 2/10,000 people will be burned due to leaky cups.) Courts have been split over statistical knowledge is sufficient to establish intent. “Desire or substantial certainty”: the desire is not there, and as far as “substantial certainty”, it is unlikely to a high degree because in each transaction, there is actually “substantial certainty” that there will be no harm.

Transferred intent can apply to: Battery, Assault, False Imprisonment, Trespassing land/chattel. It is when the components of the tort are all met, but the intent was meant for another person or thing. One can also intend one tort and be held liable for another.

If Δ hits Π, that’s battery, and if, unbeknownst to Δ, Π just happens to have hemophilia and ends up in hospital, then Δ is liable for medical costs b/c Δ intended harmful contact w/ Π

1. 1. A acts,
2. 2. Intending to cause in P the apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with P; and
3. 3. A’s act causes P to reasonably apprehend such a contact.

  A plaintiff does not have to prove she was fearful, only that she was aware imminent contact may occur.

  Words are not enough to constitute assault.  However, in the real world there are always circumstances surrounding words, so it is possible that words are the primary proof in a case where relationship between the defendants, context of the words, etc can make a case for assault.

Is not assault.  It must be imminent

  one can be held liable for aiding and abetting assault if they incite, encourage, or participate in the act.  This is rarely done.

-Self Defense/Justifications
-Consent
-Excuses such as mental illness are not defenses

Certain activities imply some sort of contact: sports, riding a crowded bus, etc.