2. In a suit by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover damages for the plaintiff's broken leg, the plaintiff will

To establish a prima facie case of battery, a plaintiff must prove that there was an act by the defendant which brought about harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff's person, that the defendant intended to bring about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff's person, and causation. The defendant is not required to have personally carried out the offensive or harmful contact with the plaintiff, as long as the defendant set into motion an action with purpose or knowledge to a substantial certainty that the offensive or harmful contact would result. Intentionally wrongful actions render the defendant liable for all consequences of those acts, even if unintended and unforeseen.

A is correct. The plaintiff would prevail on a battery claim because the defendant knew that the cake would be harmful or offensive to the plaintiff. Although the defendant did not personally make any physical contact with the plaintiff, and neither broke the plaintiff's leg or had any reason to anticipate that injury, the defendant would be liable for battery the plaintiff's resulting injury, because the defendant committed battery against the plaintiff through setting into motion an action with purpose or knowledge to a substantial certainty that the offensive or harmful contact would result. Specifically, the defendant intentionally supplied the cake with the knowledge/intent that it would make the plaintiff sick. Consequently, the defendant would be liable to the plaintiff for the injuries which resulted, whether foreseeable, like the stomach ailment, or unforeseeable, like the broken leg.

B is incorrect. The plaintiff would not be barred from recovery against the defendant on the basis that the paramedic was not negligent. To the contrary, the negligence or lack thereof by the paramedic would be irrelevant to both the amount of damages the plaintiff could recover, and would not sever the defendant's liability to the plaintiff. Intentionally wrongful actions render defendants liable for all consequences of those acts, even if unintended and unforeseen.

Although it was unforeseeable that the paramedic would have a heart attack causing an accident and by extension, the plaintiff's broken leg, the hospital transport, and accident were both consequences resulting from the defendant's intentional wrongful actions. Consequently, just as the paramedic's accident would not sever the defendant's liability for battery, the ambulance driver's level of negligence would be irrelevant.

C is incorrect. Intentionally wrongful actions render defendants liable for all consequences of those acts, even if unintended and unforeseen. The plaintiff suffered a stomach ailment from the cake made by the defendant, necessitating ambulance transportation to the hospital. In turn, the plaintiff's broken leg occurred during the hospital transport. Although the plaintiff's leg injury was not reasonably foreseeable, it was still a consequence of the defendant's intentional wrongful actions, and the defendant would be liable to the plaintiff for damages for the leg injury.

D is incorrect. Superseding and intervening causes are generally applicable where another party's act, whether negligent or intentional, occurs which relieves the original tortfeasor of liability for negligence. Here, the defendant committed battery, an intentional tort. Intentionally wrongful actions render defendants liable for all consequences of those acts, even if unintended and unforeseen.

The paramedic's heart attack was not a superseding cause, because the plaintiff's ambulance transport injury was still a consequence of the defendant's intentional wrongful action, even though it was an unintentional and unforeseen consequence.