Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Transferred Intent  (Read 2378 times)

Dean Prosser

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Transferred Intent
« on: December 01, 2004, 05:31:18 PM »
Can someone supply a "good-for-exam" definition of Transferred Intent?


If A assaults B, which subsequently makes her fall onto C's property, which causes damages, will A be responsible *by way of* the doctrine of Transferred Intent (C can assert a cause of action against A for Trespass to Land)?

Thanks a lot!

Dicta

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
  • Life Is Good
    • View Profile
Re: Transferred Intent
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2004, 07:12:25 PM »
"Intent follows the fist" or the shove or whatever the tortfeasor intends....
short and sweet, will that help?
Susan
Until you go too far, you will never know how far you can go.
TS Eliot (poorly paraphrased by myself)

jessesky

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Transferred Intent
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2004, 07:53:12 PM »
This is my torts transferred intent definition.  I believe it's from Talmage v. Smith

whether the P may recover depends upon an intention on the part of the D to hit someone or to inflict an unwarranted injury upon somebody.  the fact that the D injured someone though not intended does not relieve him of responsibility. 

jessesky

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Transferred Intent
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2004, 07:56:32 PM »
as to your hypo.  i have learned that transferred intent can be used across five torts:  assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattel.  I would answer yes to the whether it can be transferred.


Dicta

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
  • Life Is Good
    • View Profile
Re: Transferred Intent
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2004, 10:24:03 PM »
Yes, it can only be invoked on those 5 torts.
S
Until you go too far, you will never know how far you can go.
TS Eliot (poorly paraphrased by myself)

duma

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
Re: Transferred Intent
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2004, 11:35:35 AM »
This is my torts transferred intent definition.  I believe it's from Talmage v. Smith

whether the P may recover depends upon an intention on the part of the D to hit someone or to inflict an unwarranted injury upon somebody.  the fact that the D injured someone though not intended does not relieve him of responsibility. 

We would use the same case, but a different way of saying the same thing:

(According to the doctrine of transferred intent, if the defendant intends to hit somebody, the defendant will be liable for hitting anybody.) The fact that injury is sustained by an unintentional party does not relieve the actor of responsibility, when that the intent to inflict injury was unwarranted. Talmage v. Smith

BTW, a way to remember what torts transferred intent fits into is:
FITBATC (False Imp., Tresspass, Battery, Assault, Trespass to Chattel)

jeffjoe

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
  • ABA? We don't need no stinking ABA.
    • View Profile
Re: Transferred Intent
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2004, 11:43:24 AM »
If A intends a tort against B

it is transfered intent if

A commits the same tort against C
A commits a different tort against B
A commits a different tort agasint C
Praying for peace in Iraq  +
Praying for the tsunami victims   +

Dean Prosser

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Transferred Intent
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2004, 11:53:30 AM »
Thanks a lot for your help.   

I was just grappling with the reason for it - it's completely public policy.  How could it be an intentional if I aimed at A and I hit B?  I did not "intend" to hit B, nor was I substantially certain I would hit B!   Society wants the intentional tortfeasor punished regardless of who is intended.  What a great legal system we have!

BTW:  Go Arizona Basketball!

jeffjoe

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
  • ABA? We don't need no stinking ABA.
    • View Profile
Re: Transferred Intent
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2004, 12:02:08 PM »
If you intended to punch B and missed, tripped and knocked over C's ladder which made D think  he was going to be hit by the ladder, but wasn't=.

You intended battery against B but your intent transferred to assault against D
Praying for peace in Iraq  +
Praying for the tsunami victims   +

duma

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
Re: Transferred Intent
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2004, 12:43:26 PM »
I was just grappling with the reason for it - it's completely public policy.  How could it be an intentional if I aimed at A and I hit B?  I did not "intend" to hit B, nor was I substantially certain I would hit B! 
If your reason for hitting "A" was unlawful, why would you think your reason for hitting "B" was not unlawful? Remeber, the fundamental reason for a battery claim is one’s rights to his body integrity. Why shouldn't the law protect B, even if you didn't mean to hurt them?