Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
40. In an action for battery by the neighbor against the child, what is the strongest argument for liability?
A mother and her six-year-old child were on a walk when the mother stopped to talk with an elderly neighbor. Because the child resented having his mother's attention diverted by the neighbor, the child angrily threw himself against the neighbor and knocked her to the ground. The neighbor suffered a broken wrist as a result of the fall.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
To establish a battery claim, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive bodily contact with the plaintiff's person. The defendant is liable not only for direct contact but also indirect contact, i.e., it will be sufficient if he sets in motion a force that brings about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff's person.
Intent can be established by showing the defendant's intent to cause EITHER: (i) a harmful or offensive bodily contact; or (ii) an imminent apprehension by the plaintiff of a harmful or offensive bodily contact, which may be established by intent to commit an assault (i.e., if the defendant intended merely to put the plaintiff in fear of an imminent harmful or offensive contact, it is sufficient for a battery claim, regardless of whether the defendant intended to make actual contact). A person can have the intent necessary for an intentional tort even though he does not desire to «harm» the victim.
A is correct. Children are liable for committing intentional torts as long as it can be shown that they formed the requisite intent under the tort. For battery, the intent element is satisfied where the defendant intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive bodily contact with the plaintiff's body. Thus, if the neighbor can show that the child intended to throw himself against the neighbor, this will be sufficient to sustain a battery claim.
B is incorrect. Proof of intent to cause injury or knowledge that injury may result is not necessary to recover on a claim of battery. All that is required is a showing that the defendant intended to inflict harmful or offensive contact. Here, it is therefore sufficient that the child intended to touch the neighbor in a way that would be considered harmful or offensive, even if the child was too young to understand that what he was doing was wrong or to appreciate that the neighbor might be unusually vulnerable to injury.
C is incorrect. Whether the child was old enough to appreciate the riskiness of his conduct is irrelevant to the neighbor's battery claim. It is sufficient that the child intended to touch the neighbor in a way that would be considered harmful or offensive, even though the child may have been too young to understand that what he was doing was wrong. Whether a child is old enough to appreciate a given risk would be relevant in a negligence action, but not in an action for battery.
D is incorrect. It is sufficient that the child intended to touch the neighbor in a way that would be considered harmful or offensive, whether or not the child was justifiably angry. The motive for a defendant's actions may be relevant to an affirmative defense in some situations, but even justified anger is not a defense to an intentional tort.