Our client N.S Bright is a married man in his sixties and is a resident of Portland, Oregon. On Halloween night 2014 he claims that while he was at his residence he had heard a knock on his front door. Mr. Bright opened his front door and saw a brown paper bag that was on fire on his front porch. He explained that when he slowly opened his screen door and stuck his head out to investigate, the screen door was slammed into his head. Before the door had hit his head, he said he caught a glimpse of a figure of a man exiting the porch and it was his neighbor, Mr. Maker. After our client was stunned momentarily from being hit by the door he proceeded to step on the lit paper bag to extinguish it. The bag was full of a brown substance (poop) and
…show more content…
Maker pushed the screen door closed and it hit Mr. Bright, was there an actual contact that is sufficient to claim the tort of battery?
Application of Elements:
Act: Mr. Maker shut the screen door after Mr. Bright had already opened it. Closing a door or the action of pushing one closed is likely to be found a voluntary movement of the body. The contact that occurred between Mr. Bright’s head and the door was significant because he was stunned momentarily and sustained a cut on his head. An act has occurred if it’s found that Mr. Maker voluntarily pushed the door that hit our client and the cut that Mr. Bright sustained is considered a significant contact.
Intent to cause imminent contact with plaintiff or apprehension of such contact: Mr. Maker had shut the door after Mr. Bright had already opened it. It’s fairly foreseeable to a reasonable person that the contact was going to occur because, its human nature for a person to open their front door after they here a knock. It would be considered highly likely or even predictable that Mr. Bright would be opening his door at that moment.
Contact (harmful or offensive): The screen door hit Mr. Bright and it was some degree of harmful contact because he sustained an injury to his head. A court would find that a large cut on a person’s head is a result of harmful
Maker pushed the screen door closed and it hit Mr. Bright, was there an actual contact that is sufficient to claim the tort of battery?
Application of Elements:
Act: Mr. Maker shut the screen door after Mr. Bright had already opened it. Closing a door or the action of pushing one closed is likely to be found a voluntary movement of the body. The contact that occurred between Mr. Bright’s head and the door was significant because he was stunned momentarily and sustained a cut on his head. An act has occurred if it’s found that Mr. Maker voluntarily pushed the door that hit our client and the cut that Mr. Bright sustained is considered a significant contact.
Intent to cause imminent contact with plaintiff or apprehension of such contact: Mr. Maker had shut the door after Mr. Bright had already opened it. It’s fairly foreseeable to a reasonable person that the contact was going to occur because, its human nature for a person to open their front door after they here a knock. It would be considered highly likely or even predictable that Mr. Bright would be opening his door at that moment.
Contact (harmful or offensive): The screen door hit Mr. Bright and it was some degree of harmful contact because he sustained an injury to his head. A court would find that a large cut on a person’s head is a result of harmful