Torts

Intentional Interference With Person or Property A. Intent 2 types 1. Specific Intent consciously desiring the physical result 2. General Intent knowledge that the result is substantially certainty to follow -The Restatement places torts somewhat on a continuum with Negligence The most culpable form of intent would be a specific intent, or morally apprehensible form of misconduct you swing a baseball bat to hit someone in the face General intent would be next on the continuum knowing with substantial certainty Recklessness- Callous disregard ( I dont give a crap. Gross Negligence- aware of the harm but you are indifferent to it Negligence- foreseeable risk of harm but you fail to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances Most culpable (responsible/punishable) Least culpable (-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------( Specific General Recklessness Gross Negligence Negligence Garratt v. Dailey five year old Dailey pulled a chair out from under an elderly woman (Garratt) resulting in several injuries trial court held no battery because Dailey did not possess specific intent (consciously desiring the physical result) to play a prank or cause harm Appellate Court remanded the case to the trial court to consider if Daileys behavior had met the requisites for general intent (knowledge with a substantial certainty that pulling the chair out from under plaintiff would cause harm). They need to look at the law. Only relevance defendants age has is as it may affect the extent of ones knowledge Fromenthal v. Clark 2 year old not liable for biting an infant because court said too young to form intent Court said intent does not require bad motives, it only requires a volitional act performed with knowledge that there is a substantive certainty that bodily contact will occur Restatement of the court places intentional torts on a continuum with