Tort Law: Case briefs on assault from week 1

Assault

Western Union Telegraph v. Hill

• Facts: Employee of defendant, Western Union, attempted to touch the wife of plaintiff, Hill, and offered to “fix her clock” in return for sexual favors. Plaintiff had a routine contract for clock repair with defendant.
• History: Trial court for plaintiff, defendant appealed.
• Issue: Did the trial court err in submitting to the jury?  Was there assault that would cause for damages?
• Holding: No, no. Ought to be resubmitted to the jury; employee was acting beyond scope of employment.
• Result: Reversed.
• Rule: Only apprehension of imminent battery is requisite for assault.

MaGuire v. Almy

• Facts: The defendant, who is mentally insane, struck defendant, her caretaker
• Issue: Should the trial court have ruled in favor of the defendant on the grounds that insanity is a defense from battery?
• Holding: No
• Rule: If an insane person is capable of intent, he is liable under the same circumstances as a normal person.

Talmage v. Smith

• Facts: Defendant hit plaintiff with a stick, causing blindness. Defendant had intended the stick to scare or harm a different person.
• History: Trial court for plaintiff, defendant appealed.
• Issue: Is it still battery if the defendant intended the harmful action for a different party, and so harms an unintended party.
• Holding: Yes
• Rule: Transferable tort. If tort was intended for one party, then it’s transferable to another party.

Tort Law: Case briefs on battery from week 1

Battery

Garrat v. Dailey

• Facts- Plaintiff and her sister and the defendant are in the sister’s backyard. The defendant moves and sits in a chair. The plaintiff goes to sit in that same chair. The defendant attempts to push the chair back to catch plaintiff, but fails. Plaintiff falls and suffers $11,000 in damages.
• History: Trial, appeal, s. Court
• Issue: did the defendant act with intent to harm or knowledge? Does this warrant a new trial or judgement?
• Holding: Unclear, and no.
• Rule: Intent to harm or knowledge that action would cause harm is necessary for tort.
• Rationale: Battery requires intent of harm or knowledge of likelihood.

Wagner v. State

• Facts: Giese, a mentally disabled person under supervision of the state, threw plaintiff on the ground.
• Issue: Is intent to harm requisite for battery?
• Holding: No
• Rationale: What about an unpetitioned kiss? That is not harmful, however, it is undesirable.
• Rule: Battery- intent to make harmful or offensive contact.

Wallace v. Rosen

• Facts: Defendant touched/ pushed plaintiff, during fire drill. Plaintiff fell and suffered damages.
• History: Trial court jury ruled for Rosen; Wallace appealled.
• Issue: Did the trial court err in submitting the defendant’s instructions to the jury that battery does not require intent?
• Holding: No
• Rule: Battery must involve intent, in rude, insolent, angry, or harmful manner.
• Result: Affirmed.

Fisher v. Carrousel Mo. Hotel Inc.

• Facts: Employee of defendant snatches plate from plaintiff and shouts, negroes can’t be served here.
• History: Trial court jury gave a verdict for plaintiff, however, judges overruled for defendant. Appellate court affirmed.
• Issue: Did the trial court err in overruling the verdict? Is physical contact necessary for battery?
• Holding: Yes, No.
• Rule: Contact with physical body is not requisite for battery.
• Term: Judgement notwithstanding the verdict.

Tort Law: Case briefs from week 1

Intent

Hulle v. Orynge

• Liability only requires damage, intent is not necessary to prove
• Burden of proof is on defendant

Weaver v. Ward

• Facts: Defendant accidentally shot plaintiff while in military contact.
• Rule: Burden of proof on defendant. Defendant is liable unless utterly not the fault of the defendant.

Brown v. Kendall

• Facts: Defendant hits plaintiff with a stick accidentally while separating a dog fight.
• History: Jury for plaintiff
• Result: Retrial
• Rule: Liability must be based on legal faulty.
• Issue: were the instructions to the jury appropriate?   
• Relevance: began the idea of “contributory negligence”

Cohen v. Petty

• Result: Affirmed
• History: Plaintiff appealed
• Facts: Defendant unexpectedly fainted and drove off the road, launching plaintiffs from the car
• Issue: Was the trial court justified in taking the case from the jury on the grounds that the negligence cannot be proven when unexpected happens.
• Holding: Yes
• Rule: Not chargeable with negligence, when driver becomes sick without anticipation

Spano v. Perini Corp

• Facts: Plaintiff’s property damaged by blasting of defendant, even though physical contact wasn’t made.
• History: Trial Court ruled for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
• issue : Can tort be established without negligence or intent?
• Holding: Yes
• Rule: Absolute liability applies when plaintiff engages in abnormally dangerous behavior.