Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. Assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort , as opposed to a tort of negligence .
In tort law, there are generally five areas in which transferred intent is applicable: battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels. Generally, any intent to cause any one of these five torts which results in the completion of any of the five tortious acts will be considered an intentional act, even if the ...
Sheridan v. United States, 487 U.S. 392 (1988), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning what constitutes a claim "arising out of" an assault or battery within the meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The Supreme Court held that the FTCA's intentional tort exception did not apply.
Through the evolution of the common law in various jurisdictions, and the codification of common law torts, most jurisdictions now broadly recognize three trespasses to the person: assault, which is "any act of such a nature as to excite an apprehension of battery"; [2] battery, "any intentional and unpermitted contact with the plaintiff's ...
An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor (alleged wrongdoer). The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable ...
When she did, she fell, sustaining injuries. Garratt brought an action against the child for battery. The trial judge found in favor of Dailey, stating that there was no intent to harm Garratt. Garratt appealed to the Washington Supreme Court. The issue before the Court was whether a lack of intent to cause harm precludes a battery charge.
Picard v. Barry Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 654 A.2d 690 (R.I. 1995) is a Rhode Island Supreme Court case often cited in tort law text books to explain the legal concept of battery. Picard was unhappy about her mechanic's brake inspection and contacted a local television news "troubleshooter" reporter.
In common law, battery is a tort falling under the umbrella term 'trespass to the person'. Entailing unlawful contact which is directed and intentional, or reckless (or, in Australia, negligently [1]) and voluntarily bringing about a harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them, such as a bag or purse, without legal consent.