BATTERY

Question 1

WATERS V. BLACKSHEAR (FIRECRACKER CASE)

Answer 1

Defendant placed firecracker in plaintiff’s shoe – constituted battery because it was an intentional act, not negligence

Question 2

POLMATIER V. RUSS (POLMATIER CASE)

Answer 2

Defendant was suffering mental break and killed father in law – insanity plea did not work for battery because he had acted and intended harm, whether or not the thoughts were illogical

Question 3

WHITE V. MUNIZ (MUNIZ CASE)

Answer 3

Defendant harmed plaintiff during diaper change and defendant has Alzheimers – dual intent jurisdiction (intent to act and intent for act to be harmful), so defendant not liable because she did not intend for it to be harmful

Question 4

NELSON V. CARROLL (GUN IN CLUB CASE)

Answer 4

Defendant meant to hit plaintiff with the gun, but the gun accidentally went off and he shot plaintiff – defendant was liable because defendant intended to invade legally protected interests of plaintiff to be free from harm, so it doesn’t matter if he only meant to hit him not shoot him

Question 5

LEICHTMAN V. JACOB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (CIGAR SMOKE CASE)

Answer 5

Defendant blew smoke in plaintiff’s face knowing he would be offended – tobacco smoke has physical components that made contact, so defendant liable for battery because it was offensive contact

Question 6

ANDREWS V. PETERS (BEHIND THE KNEE CASE)

Answer 6

Defendant kicked back of plaintiff’s knee and she fell injured – defendant is liable because he intended the act, whether he intended her to get hurt so badly doesn’t matter, he just must have intended to make contact

Question 7

TAYLOR V. BARWICK (INMATE CASE)

Answer 7

Defendant poked plaintiff with a stick – there was a battery committed, but no injury, so damages are nominal