« on: August 27, 2006, 02:18:00 PM »
I understand that battery must include an act and intent to commit the act, and then include either intent to harm or that the act be unlawful (from class discussion and reading cases). However, in McGuire v. Almy (the aide is attacked by her insane employer/patient with a table leg), the opinion states, "Fault is by no means at the present day a universal prerequisite to liability, and the theory that it should be such has been obliged very recently..."
Since fault is the responsibility for a mistake, failure, or wrongdoing (crt. of Encarta), wouldn't the combination of the act and the intent to commit the act imply fault? You are intending to commit the act, therefore you are responsible for the wrongdoing that occurs. Or am I looking at it strictly from definitions and not necessarily legal terms?