More torts stuff

[aldicarb]

 So how come no one seems to have heard that transferred intent can transfer between people (as everyone knows), but ALSO between torts. The  book Understanding Torts and E&E by Glannon point this out. One book cites the case Etcher v. Blitch among other case law.

Also... in terms of battery and assault in which offensive/harmful contact and apprehension are needed, respectively. I was taught in class and it seems pretty obvious to me that we look into the P subjectively. That is, we apply a reasonable person standard to what an offensive contact is- would a reasonable persno find this contact offensive? This applies to apprehension as well- would a reasonable person apprehend a harmful/offensive contact?

example: A touches taps B on shoulder to ask a question about a flight arrival time. B is severely offended and sues A for battery.
Under the reasonable person test, this is not actionable, as a reasonable person in our society would not find such a contact as offensive... as opposed to a push, punch, etc.

Glannon in his EandE point this reasonable person standard out and so do other books, and my professor. However, some people on other boards seem to be completely baffled by this pretty obvious idea. Most of these scholars and judges pull this standard from the language of the Restatement of "offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity".

[starter]

Are you looking for validation, or do you have a question?  I don't understand your understanding of transferred intent, so I can't help you there.

The reasonable person standard is not subjective.

[J D]

I thought, with respect to assault anyway, the Restatement (Second) Torts took the very controversial position in s. 27 that "f an act is intended to put another in apprehension of an immediate bodily contact and succeeds in so doing, the actor is subject to liability for an assault although his act would not have put a person of ordinary courage in such apprehension."  But I don't think any jurisdiction has followed ALI's lead on this point.

[Strong]

Dobbs on Torts portrays a similar view of battery in that lack of consent, no matter how unreasonable to other people, is an element of battery

He doesn't totally elimnate a reasonability standard, but states that the right of someone to exercise control over their bodies is of utmomst importance

[starter]

Maybe I'm thinking more with respect to negligence.  You can't say "I'm too stupid to live up to the reasonable person standard" or "I tried my best."  That is never considered a defense.

[robmelone]

So how come no one seems to have heard that transferred intent can transfer between people (as everyone knows), but ALSO between torts.

Who are you referring to when you say, "no one"?  I think everyone at least conceptually understands intent can transfer from tort to tort.  For instance, if you throw a bunch at someone intending only to come an inch from there face to scare them, but you end up hitting them.  I think we all understand your intent to assault them tranfers to the resulting battery.

Rob
http://www.cafepress.com/lawthug