Torts

1. Art v. Charlie

A. Is Charlie liable to Art for assault?

B. Battery is a volitional act done with the requisite intent that causes the Plaintiff to suffer a harmful or offensive contact, without consent or privilege.

C. Was Charlie’s act volitional? A volitional act is a voluntary act. It is a choice made. It is purposeful, not a reflexive act. The facts say that Charlie aimed & fired the gun. The act of aiming & firing is not reflexive. Aiming & firing a gun at someone is a choice and it is purposeful. Therefore, Charlie’s act of aiming & firing the gun is volitional. Did Charlie act with the requisite intent? Intent can be established in one of three ways: (1) Desire that the tortuous result should occur, (2) knowledge to a substantial certainty that it will occur or (3) transferred intent. The facts tell us that Charlie approached Art & Bill within ten feet & stated to Art that he (Charlie) was going to kill him, then aimed the gun at Art, so it is reasonable to conclude that Charlie desired to cause a contact. On the other hand, if a jury would not conclude that Charlie actually desired to cause a contact by aiming the gun at Art, a reasonable person would conclude that when one aims a gun at someone, he would know with substantial certainty that the bullet from the gun might cause contact. Thus, Charlie had the requisite intent. Did Charlie cause a harmful or offensive contact with Art? The act of the defendant must result in the plaintiff being harmed (injured) or being reasonably offended. An offensive contact is generally objective – that which a reasonable person find offensive. It is that which would offend a reasonable person’s sense of personal dignity. The facts state that Charlie fired the gun, hitting Art in the arm. Generally, when one is struck with a bullet, harm or injury occurs, even if slightly. However, we do not necessarily need harm or injury since the rule says we must have harmful OR...