1
Current Law Students / Re: Intentional Torts question
« on: September 11, 2005, 03:20:57 PM »
how the hell do you prove intent to cause harm?? except for a few obvious scenarios, it seems like a very hard task.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Current Law Students / Re: List of schools accepting NOLA students
« on: September 11, 2005, 01:55:14 PM »
we have a few at miami
3
Current Law Students / Re: Intentional Torts question
« on: September 11, 2005, 01:51:17 PM »
intent to harm is not required. intent to make 1)offensive or harmful 2)contact that causes the harm is required.
uncertainty arises when you try to determine what constitutes "offensive or harmful" contact. this is where the whole "reasonable man" thing comes in to play and where annoying lawyers have room to argue.
looking back to vosburg, the court ruled that if the touching had occured on the playground it probably would not have been "unlawful" and putney wouldnt have been liable for battery. in that situation, the touching wouldnt have been offensive, but in the classroom it was. putney is liable because he intended to make contact, and that contact was offensive. whether he intended the harm that resulted is irrelevant.
if you shake someone's hand at a reception and fracture some bones because of some pre-existing bone disease that you had no knowledge of, you wouldnt be liable for battery. you had no intent to cause harm, and while you did intend to make that contact, it would not be considered an offensive touching by a reasonable person considering the circumstances.
uncertainty arises when you try to determine what constitutes "offensive or harmful" contact. this is where the whole "reasonable man" thing comes in to play and where annoying lawyers have room to argue.
looking back to vosburg, the court ruled that if the touching had occured on the playground it probably would not have been "unlawful" and putney wouldnt have been liable for battery. in that situation, the touching wouldnt have been offensive, but in the classroom it was. putney is liable because he intended to make contact, and that contact was offensive. whether he intended the harm that resulted is irrelevant.
if you shake someone's hand at a reception and fracture some bones because of some pre-existing bone disease that you had no knowledge of, you wouldnt be liable for battery. you had no intent to cause harm, and while you did intend to make that contact, it would not be considered an offensive touching by a reasonable person considering the circumstances.
4
Current Law Students / Re: Torts Hypo
« on: September 11, 2005, 08:57:18 AM »
windshields are made from tempered and/or laminated glass. there is no way in hell a cork will ever shatter one.
5
Current Law Students / Re: Is using canned briefs + reading the case sufficient?
« on: September 10, 2005, 06:23:49 PM »
if you want to brief, forget the retarded long form that law schools teach you and go with a condensed statement of the facts, the holding, and the rationale/rule. (and dont do those stupid holdings that go something like "no, the lower court did not err by ____ where _____." just get right to the substantive legal issue in question.)
i think everything else is worthlesss bs and a waste of your time.
i think everything else is worthlesss bs and a waste of your time.
7
Current Law Students / Re: Intentional Torts question
« on: September 05, 2005, 07:29:04 PM »
causing "apprehension of such a contact" is an element of assault, not battery, right? there actually has to be some kind of harmful contact for battery.
and what about vosburg v. putney where the court ruled that intent to act is enough even if there is no intent to harm? if you slap someone in the face in a joking manner but end up breaking his/her nose, you can be held liable for battery simply because you intended to commit that act of slapping, even though you didnt intend to cause any harm.
and what about vosburg v. putney where the court ruled that intent to act is enough even if there is no intent to harm? if you slap someone in the face in a joking manner but end up breaking his/her nose, you can be held liable for battery simply because you intended to commit that act of slapping, even though you didnt intend to cause any harm.
8
Current Law Students / Re: are your classmates snobby a**holes?
« on: August 31, 2005, 02:38:40 PM »
lol jacy, look at the original post by ronniedeutch that i quoted.
btw, you missed one: "aggaravation" ??
btw, you missed one: "aggaravation" ??
9
Current Law Students / Re: TO ALL TULANE LAW EVACUEES
« on: August 31, 2005, 11:37:55 AM »
official school info is also posted at www.TulaneGreenWave.com
10
Current Law Students / Re: are your classmates snobby a**holes?
« on: August 31, 2005, 11:15:29 AM »my aggaravation has nothing to do with "talking like a lawyer on your first day of law school". the people who think they are johnny cochran incarnated are annoying too. if i worked at mcdonalds and people talked that way, it would annoy me. even as an undergraduate in a social situation..it is STILL annoying. the overuse of LIKES is just CONCENTRATED in law school, for whatever reason. it is worse than my undergraduate school. it is an ignorant and irritating way of communicated, irregardless of its location.
well, irregardless of what you think about proper speaking, you minus well just ignore the "likes" instead of getting aggaravated. i know i sure as hell have better things to worry about and could care less if someone says "like" in class.