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.
9. If the plaintiff asserts a claim against the defendant based on battery, which of the following, if supported by evidence, will be the defendant's best defense?
A plaintiff was walking peacefully along a public street when he encountered the defendant, whom he had never seen before. Without provocation or warning, the defendant picked up a rock and struck the plaintiff with it. It was later established that the defendant was mentally ill and suffered recurrent hallucinations.
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
Under the majority view, insane people will be liable for their intentional torts. If an insane person is capable of forming an intent to do a harmful act, he may be liable for the intentional tort just as a normal person would be. Even if his insanity was the cause of the intent, it is irrelevant.
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.
When a person has reasonable grounds to believe that he is being, or is about to be, attacked, he may use such force as is reasonably necessary for protection against the potential injury.
C is correct. The issue here is, which of the defenses addresses whether the defendant had formed the intent necessary to complete the battery? The best defense would be that the defendant did not know he was striking a person, which would defeat intent. Mental disability does not generally provide immunity for intentionally tortious conduct. Thus, if the defendant threw the rock with the purpose of hitting the plaintiff or the knowledge that he would hit the plaintiff with the rock, he had formed intent, regardless of his understanding or motive. However, if he did not know he was striking a person, then he could not have formed the intent to hit a person. As such, the only defense that has a chance of prevailing is one where the defendant did not intend to hit the plaintiff at all.
A is incorrect. Mistake of law, or ignorance that one's act (s) are illegal, is generally not a defense. Therefore, if the defendant intended to throw the rock but did not understand that it was illegal to do so, it will not save him from liability. And as stated above, mental disability does not generally provide immunity.
B is incorrect. Even if the defendant did not desire to harm the plaintiff, he would still be liable. This is because a person can have the requisite intent for an intentional tort, including battery, even without a desire to harm. Battery specifically only requires the intent to cause the harmful or offensive touching.
D is incorrect. In this scenario, the defendant's belief that the plaintiff was about to attack him would have been unreasonable because the plaintiff was peacefully walking down the street. A proper self-defense claim requires the defendant to reasonably believe the force is necessary to guard against harm to himself.