Culpability refers to assigning liability or finding an individual or people liable for specific damages. Where judgments are concerned, Culpability judgments involve creating a connection between a defendant and the injury or wrongdoing. In the absence of a connection, a party cannot be culpable, and such a message would be defamatory (Stark, 2016). This chapter seeks to highlight and discuss the various forms of culpability.
General Intent
This classification is utilized where an individual intended to perform an illegal act, which results in an unwanted outcome. It is critical to note that although the willingness to carry out the act exists the unintended result was a possibility; it may not necessarily be what was intended by the perpetrator …show more content…
The damage caused by the perpetrator's action is as a result of premeditation (Scheb, 2014). For example, a woman arguing with a spouse may get angry and intentionally scratch his eye. In this case, the actions will be regarded to as ‘aggravated battery’ unlike if it wasn’t the intention.
Transferred Intent
This rule identifies that a perpetrator can be found liable for torts performed against a plaintiff, regardless of whether the tort was unintended or it was the unintended victim (Statsky, 2011). For example, an individual lays an ambush to shoot Paul but instead ends up accidentally shooting Peter will still be found liable regardless of his original intention.
Constructive Intent
This is utilized to classify those torts, whose outcomes can be anticipated, however, when they occur, they are not the purpose of the perpetrator. Although the outcome is unintentional, the perpetrator is perceived as they should have known better because the outcome was highly likely (Alvarez, 2001). For example, when an unlicensed driver takes a car and mistakes the brake pedal for the accelerator pedal and runs the vehicle into a
General Intent
This classification is utilized where an individual intended to perform an illegal act, which results in an unwanted outcome. It is critical to note that although the willingness to carry out the act exists the unintended result was a possibility; it may not necessarily be what was intended by the perpetrator …show more content…
The damage caused by the perpetrator's action is as a result of premeditation (Scheb, 2014). For example, a woman arguing with a spouse may get angry and intentionally scratch his eye. In this case, the actions will be regarded to as ‘aggravated battery’ unlike if it wasn’t the intention.
Transferred Intent
This rule identifies that a perpetrator can be found liable for torts performed against a plaintiff, regardless of whether the tort was unintended or it was the unintended victim (Statsky, 2011). For example, an individual lays an ambush to shoot Paul but instead ends up accidentally shooting Peter will still be found liable regardless of his original intention.
Constructive Intent
This is utilized to classify those torts, whose outcomes can be anticipated, however, when they occur, they are not the purpose of the perpetrator. Although the outcome is unintentional, the perpetrator is perceived as they should have known better because the outcome was highly likely (Alvarez, 2001). For example, when an unlicensed driver takes a car and mistakes the brake pedal for the accelerator pedal and runs the vehicle into a