Monday, June 2, 2014
Restatement of Intentional Torts: Transferred Intent
In an attempt to elicit comments about the ALI's Restatement of Intentional Torts, Ken Simons and Ellen Pryor asked that I post the black letter portions of the current draft. If you have comments, you can post them here or send them directly to Ken and Ellen (or both). Ken can be reached at: [email protected] and Ellen at [email protected]. The entire draft, comments and all, is here.
§ 110. Transferred Intent
(a) For purposes of liability for battery, purposeful infliction of bodily harm,
assault, or false imprisonment, an actor shall be deemed to satisfy the intent
required for the tort if the actor’s intent is directed at causing the relevant tortious
consequence to a third party, rather than to the plaintiff, but the actor’s conduct
causes that consequence to the plaintiff.
(b) For purposes of liability for battery, an actor shall be deemed to satisfy
the intent required if the actor either intends to cause a contact with the person of
another or intends to cause the other to apprehend that a harmful or offensive
contact with his or her person is imminent.
(c) For purposes of liability for assault, an actor shall be deemed to satisfy
the intent required if the actor either intends to cause a contact with the person of
another or intends to cause the other to apprehend that a harmful or offensive
contact with his or her person is imminent.
(d) The liability of an actor under rules (a), (b), and (c) is subject to the
ordinary tort-law requirement that the actor’s conduct must be a factual cause of
the relevant tortious consequence within the scope of the actor’s liability.
--CJR
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/tortsprof/2014/06/restatement-of-intentional-torts-transferred-intent.html
Comments
Agreed: if recklessness or negligence sufficed for battery or assault liability, then transferred intent doctrine would be largely unnecessary. Given the strong judicial consensus requiring intent for battery and assault, however, the transferred intent doctrine does make a difference, and expands liability in ways that we believe are defensible.
Posted by: Ken Simons | Jun 6, 2014 2:32:31 PM
Allowing liability for assault or battery for reckless conduct removes many of the hard cases from having to be shoehorned into Section 110.
Posted by: ohwilleke | Jun 3, 2014 3:16:02 PM