The fact that the walking trail was "frequently unused" might have something to do with determining whether it was substantially certain that someone would fall into the hole. If it was a busy sidewalk and he covered up a hole it might be different. This is a much better case for negligence than battery.
Quote from: starter on September 03, 2006, 10:50:16 AMThe fact that the walking trail was "frequently unused" might have something to do with determining whether it was substantially certain that someone would fall into the hole. If it was a busy sidewalk and he covered up a hole it might be different. This is a much better case for negligence than battery.sYeah thats what I was thinking. Gross negligence.Also, back to JD's point. Yeah I know what a lawyers job is. These are exam type facts for Torts. If you walk into your torts exam and start throwing down crap from your contracts class, your going to get a big fat F. Even if it weren't and you had a senior partner at a firm asking you to address the intent element of Battery and you give him some contracts insight, your going to get coffee thrown in your face
I stopped reading after three words. I know you spent a lot of time, typing, editing, and using WESTLAW to come up with all this insight. I am sorry. Let me just quote what I put in the first line."Can Luke sue for battery? The issue I'm looking at really is if he had the intent since he didn't specifically target Luke, and theres no sub. certainty."Perhaps start a new post called "what lawyers do" and put it in there. I'm sure there are a lot of people who will thank you for gathering all that info for them. They are obviously studying too hard to figure it out on their own.(I also apoligize for poor spelling, grammer, and punctuation in all my posts)
I feel pretty strongly that the guy that set the trap would surely by found liable for battery. First of all, it does not matter if he did not specifically target anyone, if he intended the consequences of his actions.. no matter on who. It does not matter if it is possible that someone may not fall, it is important what his intent was. In fact, it does not really matter, now that I think about it, whether he was subst. certainty. In truth, he had a DESIRE to bring about a harmful or offensive contact with someone, i.e. he desired the consequences to result from his actions. To draw anything else fromt he purpose of him digging a hole in the ground and covering it up would be pretty difficult and likely fail in court.Also, I do not see negligence here. This was carried out with an intent to "see if anyone would fall". This is quite different from, oops I dug this hole and forgot about it, I used it as a garbage can while camping. That would be negligence. Here he clearly intended the result of his actions, the absolute meaning of an intentional tort.
John isn't substantially certain? You mean to tell me that if someone walked over the trap John wouldn't really think that person would defy the laws of physics and fall? From a defendant's point of view, I understand where you're coming from, but I'm arguing for Luke. If John were on the stand, here's how we pull this out of him..Me: John isn't it true that if you roll a ball off the table it falls down to the ground?John: Yes.Me: And isn't it true that the ball falls to the ground because it reached the end of the table?John: Yes.No furhter questions.Obviously, I'd tighten the questions up a little more, but you get the point. John obviously understand that if "something" heading in a certain direction on a certain surface, and that surface ceases to exist (ie hole in the ground), the "something" falls. I think this hypo is one where you can really make a case for either side, with no clear-cut winner. Obviously, there would be more to uncovering the issue of John's certainty of his act, but given the scenario, I think this is the way to attack it from a plaintiff's point of view. PS - in most cases, it's harder to prove substantial certainty than not to have to prove it