The Mental Disability Defense Flashcards
McGuire v. Almy
i. Facts
1) P employed to care for the D who was an insane person, D became violent and informed the P that if anyone entered her room she would kill them, P entered the room and attempted to take a weapon from the D when the D hit her in the head and injured her
ii. Issue
1) Is D liable for assault and battery even though she lacks the capacity to intend the offensive touch?
iii. Holding
1) Insane persons are liable for tort law if they possess the intention to perform the offensive contact, not necessarily the harm itself.
2) Assumption of risk by the P is rejected, because the P did not assume battery risks by nature of her profession
iv. Notes TL
1) If there is an intention to cause contact, it is a battery.
2) What if she spun around and hit her unintentionally?
a) Then no she would not be liable for battery, (maybe NEG though)
3) Insane persons and their families are responsible for damages that result to another person, this is because if two innocent people bear a loss, the damages should be occasioned to the one who caused it.
4) In criminal law, intent is important, however in civil action it is not.
a) You cannot lock someone up for battery, if they did not have evil intent
b) You can make them liable for damages
5.
Judge Qua resolves this issue by looking at the social policy issues of the day, not the standard elements of battery.
Gould v. American Family Ins.
i. Holding
If a loss must be borne by two innocent persons, it shall be borne by the one who occasioned it
Polmatier v. Russ
i. Facts:
1) D and 2 yo son visited his father in law, where he beat him senseless with a beer bottle and then found the D’s gun and shot him 2 times killing him. The d was found sitting naked on a stump a ways away
ii. Holding
1) The D was deemed mentally unfit to stand for criminal trial, but was charged with intentional tort
a) Their was no evidence that it was reflexive, convulsive or epileptic in nature
b) Unable to make a rational choice, but able to make a crazy choice
c) Can intend to invade another’s interests even if the reasons for doing so are irrational
iii. Notes
This decision is consistent with Qua’s judgment in McGuire.
