Transferred Intent

[Dean Prosser]

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]

"Intent follows the fist" or the shove or whatever the tortfeasor intends....
short and sweet, will that help?
Susan

[jessesky]

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]

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]

Yes, it can only be invoked on those 5 torts.
S

[duma]

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]

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

[Dean Prosser]

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]

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

[duma]

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?