Read the following set of facts, taken from an actual tort case. Once you have read the facts, tell a jury how you believe they should rule by making a persuasive argument either in support of the plaintiff or the defendant. Keep in mind the intentional torts lecture 10/7/10 and any reading you have done in Chapter 6.
In this case, the defendant, was an eleven year old boy, and the plaintiff, was fourteen. While sitting across an aisle from each other in their schoolroom, the defendant reached across the aisle with his foot, and hit with his toe the shin of the right leg of the plaintiff "just below the knee." The incident occurred during school hours and inside the classroom. The touch was slight and the plaintiff did not feel it, either on account of its being so slight or of loss of sensation produced by the shock. In a few moments he felt a violent pain in that place on his leg, which caused him to cry out loudly. The next day he was sick, and by the fourth day he was vomiting. On the fifth day, swelling was so bad a doctor was required and plaintiff had a first operation to drain the wound. On the sixth day, a second operation occurred, which found that the bone had so degenerated that plaintiff would never again be able to use the leg.
Unknown to the defendant, the plaintiff had sustained an injury to the same area during an earlier sledding accident. According to expert testimony the kick aggravated the existing wound, and as a direct result the plaintiff permanently lost the use of his leg. Plaintiff sued defendant alleging assault and battery.
I don't think that the 11-year old defendant can commit Assualt tort in this case for two reasons:
ReplyDelete1- According to a reasonable person, a 40-year old person will not be frightened or apprehended by an 11-year old kid, so the first basis to commit an Assault is not exist; as a result, there will not be a Battery, which is the completion of the act that caused apprehension.
2- The wound that the plaintiff suffered and lost the use of his leg because of it was not a consequence of kid's toe's hit; the plaintiff was injured before the hit.
Although the defendant intended to hit the plaintiff, the other basis to commit a tort is not exist.
This cannot be classified as battery or assault...
ReplyDeletefirst of all, the context of the "attack" was unknown, whether it was intentional or not, or whether the 11 year old was being provoked (not that it would matter, what happened, happened) .
- The fact that the plaintiff did not even FEEL the pain and the age of the defendant definitely speaks for the case.
-Even if the defendant had done this intentionally, with prior knowledge of the previous knowledge of the injury; the fact that he is a minor should have some effect on whether this would be a assault/battery.
-Ritika Pandita
Although the leg was already injured the defendant still tried to kick the plantif. At this age I think the family of the plantif is getting a little out of touch with the incident. The previous injury is the culpret not the defendant. He owes the boy an apoligy but not to be sued for assault/battery. The leg should have been looked at after the sledding accident.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I disagree with my self, the case should go in favor of the plaintiff. According to the intentional tort the defendant is guilty of assault and battery. The defendant had the intention to hit the plaintiff, which cased the assault and he did hit the plaintiff which caused the battery. The plaintiff was going to eventually lose the movement of the leg since it was unknown, but the fact that the defendant sped up the process makes both parties lose. Obviously the defendant should not be punished too severely because it was during school hours and his intentions had not been malicious, but unfortunately according to the law, he is guilty.
ReplyDelete-Manouel Ohanesyan
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere is clearly no assault or battery in this case. There is no imminent harmful or offensive contact to justify such a claim. Also, people in class rooms quite frequently nudge people on the leg to either gain attention or even to casually flirt. This incident clearly falls under the Reasonable Person Standard. The plaintiff is claiming that it was the contact with the defendant's toe that exacerbated the injury; yet the plaintiff did not feel or respond to any pain until moments later. It is very possible that the plaintiff could have hit his knee on a desk while traveling through the isle. If the plaintiff couldn't feel the initial toe nudge then who knows how much contact the knee made with any other objects since the sledding accident.
ReplyDelete-Andrew Movsissian
As much as I hold sympathy for the defendant and understand that he had no idea that kicking the plaintiff on the leg would escalate this far, he is still guilty. The defendant is quite young and innocent, and may or may not have had intentions of a malicious act towards the plaintiff, but we do not know. Which furthers this case to go by the law and take it for what happened. However, the kid did lose his leg and it was the defendant that acted and committed the assault and battery by kicking the other kid in the leg. So by law, the defendant is guilty and there are consequences for such beahaviors.
ReplyDeleteI think in this case its kind of crazy to sue a teenage boy.Moreover I believe that the parents of the plaintiff should have understand the defendant because their boy is teenager too. By law the defendant is guilty and there would be cosequences. But in this case we should never forget that the defendant is still a teenage boy, and I think that he only should have apologized to the plaintiff.
ReplyDeleteSvetlana Hovhannisyan
In my opinion, the first rule you learn in school is to keep your hands and feet to yourself and not to touch other people or their belongings without permission. Said that, I think the defendant should be charged with assualt and battery because he violated the plaintiff and caused him great harm. No body knows what health conditions another person has so by keeping clear of touching other people one can avoid harm.
ReplyDelete-Selina Mirzakhani
Although the defendant may have intentionally hit the plaintiff and have caused major damages, I believe the defendant shouldn't be charged with assault or battery. Being an 11 year-old boy who can be restless and play aggressively, I am truly confident that the defendant didn't intentionally wish for the plaintiff's leg not to work ever again. The kick to the plaintiff's shin is just a result of a childish act by any young boy. Also the plaintiff's leg was already injured from another incident, therefore the mild "kick" of an 11 year-old boy couldn't have caused all of the damages alone. In this case the defendant is innocent of the assault and battery charges against him.
ReplyDelete-Jacqueline Sheen
In this case the jury should find the defendant guilty. It is true that the defendant may not have meant to hurt the plaintiff. However, an evil or harmful motive is not required for an act to be considered a tort. Regardless of what the motive was, the defendant had the intention of hitting the plaintiff. This would be considered an intentional tort. Although the plaintiff was originally hurt by a sledding accident, the defendant caused further damage to the plaintiff. Therefore, it is the defendant's fault that the plaintiff can not use his leg anymore.
ReplyDeleteThe age of the defendant shouldn't come into play when deciding if he is guilty or not. He is guilty because of his intentional action. However, his age does matter when deciding on the severity of the punishment. We can't charge an 11-year old the same way we would an adult. Since he is a minor, he shouldn't receive a harsh punishment.
-Nina Minassian
The defendant is guilty of hitting the plaintiff but he is not guilty of causing the loss of the plaintiffs leg.This was an accident waiting to happen. unfortunately, it was caused by the 14 year old's childish act. this was going to happen regardless unless the 11 year old was denied of any phyisical contact. Who knows? Perhaps the 14 year old acted in self defense? Maybe the plaintiff hit the defendant first? Not that it makes it right to hit back but it definitely changes the dynamics. Ultimately, the previous injury was the cause of the plaintiff losing his leg. The proper punishment is an apology and some couseling.
ReplyDeleteIs this a real story? lol.
ReplyDeleteWell, Even though the kick was unintentional to hurt the plantiff, the defendant was "in the act" of harm. I remember in class that the court charges for the act and not the harm done. So even if the defendant didnt mean any harm and the barely touched the plantiff the defendant is still guilty for his actions becuase he was "in the act".
I personally dont think the defendant should have to pay the plantiff for such a small incident that most likely did not cause any harm, but if the defendant commited the "act" of kicking the plantiff in the shin then he is guilty. I dont think the plantiff should be charged with assault and battery but since he committed the act he is guilty for assault and battery.
-Enrique Bautista
Many of you may be feeling sympathetic to the plaintiff and that is normal. An unfortunate series of incidents occurred because of a sledding accident. Because the action of the defendant is "slight," I believe it is safe to assume that any number of things could have caused the injury to intensify. Children are at most times reckless with their bodies and therefore may not feel all of their scrapes and bruises. The plaintiff may have been bumping into things or people throughout that day. Because of this, I believe the plaintiff should be thanking the defendant. If it was not for the defendant's actions the injury could have become worse as more time passed since the injury occurred. I believe the defendant should not be charged with assault or battery because the extent of the damages against the plaintiff's leg is unintentional. We might even blame the teacher or the school for positioning the desks across from each other. The defendant could have been stretching and accidentally tapped the plaintiff's leg.
ReplyDeleteNo question, there was intent by the defendent when he reached accross the aisle and touched the plantiff with is toe. The defendent may argue that he didn't intend for the plantiff to go through the pain and suffering that he went through, but accountability must be taken into account for his actions. No matter what their age, there must reasonable accountability for one's actions. I ask you the jury to enter a verdict of guilty for the pain, suffering and incurred medical cost because of the defendents actions.
ReplyDeleteWith the intentional tort
ReplyDeletethe defendant should be guilty
because even though he didn’t
mean to hurt the plaintiff
severely he did and should be
charged with assult and battery.
The 11 year old having caused an intentional tort makes him guilty. He knew he was going to hurt the plaintiff so the intent to hurt him was there. He is guilty and should be responsible for his actions. Causing trouble is always going to happen during school hours and should not be tolerated.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the defendant should be charged with assault ant battery for the simple fact that he was the one that caused the plaintiff to loose his leg in the end by irritating the wound more. He may have not done it on purpose but it was still done, to be consider a tort the act must be done we are not judging him on weather he did it on purpose or not. His toe touched the boy and caused all these other things that we have no proof would of occurred at all unless he irritated a previous wound. even if he did not know of the wound i still believe the defendant should be found guilty.
ReplyDeleteThe plaintiff would be able to sue the defendant with battery because the defendant did cause damages to the plaintiff. I don't think even though he had prior injuries to his leg it does not matter because he defendant had caused the plaintiff's leg to be useless now. The defendant would need to pay for all sorts of damages from medical bills to emotional since the damage was serious.
ReplyDeleteThe defendent here needs to be accountable for the actions at hand. The kick, even without any prior knowledge of the accident previously occuring to the Plantiff's leg, still was applied by the defendent and he should be accountable for any results coming from that action, minor and severe. I grant you, the defendent is still a young child, but it is through accountablility that a child learns the meaning of his actions. Therefore, I feel the child should be held accountable to the damages done unto the plantiff.
ReplyDelete