Baltimore

The issue in this case is whether the pitcher of the Baltimore Orioles, Ross Grimsley, is liable for torts against the spectator David Manning. Under Tort law, an injured party can bring a civil lawsuit to seek compensation for a wrong done to the party or to the party’s property. These damages are monetary damages sought from the offending party, intended to compensate the injured party for the injury suffered. The law protects a person from unauthorized touching, restraint, or other contact. In these cases, these are described as intentional torts, as this categorizes a tort that requires that the defendant possessed the intent to do the act that caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Furthermore, intentional torts can be broken down with regards to unauthorized touching or other contact. In this case, battery is put into question. Battery is the unauthorized and harmful or offensive physical contact with another person. Issues protected here are individuals’ reasonable sense of dignity and safety. Sometimes a person acts with the intent to injure one person instead of another. Under the Doctrine of Transferred Intent, the law transfers the perpetrator’s intent from the target to the actual victim of the act, and the victim can sue the defendant.

In this case, the spectator David Manning was hit by pitcher Ross Grimsley, although Grimsley was aiming for someone else. As the law protects a person from unauthorized touching or other contact, and goes further to categorize battery against a person as unauthorized and harmful or offensive physical contact with another person, it is clear to see that Ross Grimsley is guilty for the intentional tort of battery. Although he was aiming for someone else, he made harmful and offensive physical contact with the spectator David Manning. Under the Doctrine of Transferred Intent, David Manning can now sue for damages because the law will transfer Grimsley’s intent to injure someone else to Mr. Manning himself, despite him having...