Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/11

Click to flip

11 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
What is the definition of intent?
When a reasonable man performs an action that he believes a particular result is substantially certain to occur.
What if a minor (or mentally handicapped person) is substantially certain that an action will produce a result, is the minor liable?
Yes.
Garratt v. Dailey
McGuire v. Almy
Case Description:

Spivey v. Battaglia
Def' came up to plf' and gave her an unwarranted hug. As she pulled away from the hug, freak accident occurred. No intent- cannot be subst. certain to occur.
Case Description:

Garrat v. Dailey
Def', a young child, pulled chair out of old arthritic lady. Court found that def' knew that if child was subst. certain that if he pulled the chair out she would fall - he had intent.
What if a man intends to injur someone, but misses his target? Is he still liable?
Yes. He still had intent.

Ransom v. Kitner
Case Description:

Ranson v. Kitner
Appellants were hunting for wolves and the dog had a resemblance of a wolf. The appellant accidentally shot the appellee’s dog. Def' had intent to kill, just made a mistake. Still liable.
What is transferred intent?
It occurs if you intend the result on one individual, but you hit another - the intention still exists, but ONLY APPLIES FOR ASSAULT, BATTERY & FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
What types of torts are subject to transferred intent?
Assault, Battery & False Imprisonment.
Case Description:
McGuire v. Almy
Court does not want to bear the burden of determining mental capacity. Def' was capable of intent.
Why hold a mental hanicapped person liable for intent?
1. Encourages relatives to exercise more control
2. Someone has to be responsible and it can't be the innocent party
3. Court does not want to introduce the difficulties of determining mental capability
4. Civil courts should engage not in those that the criminal courts already have
Case Description:

Talmage v. Smith
Def, in an attempt to scare boys off his shed, threw a stick and ‘accidentally’ hit a boy out of sight causing loss of vision in an eye. Held liable for transferred intent.