well, you'd need to be bright just to get into UNSW Law schoolDooNy_TeChY said:can i just say wateva uni's or wateva your currently doing....your people are very lucky to have yous
Yes. In many intentional torts, the offending act needn't actually be 'intentional' - it will be sufficient if the act was 'negligent' (though characterising the act in this way is different to bringing an action in negligence).Suvat said:This may seem elementary but um... when all the evidence point to an intentional tort, can you still frame it in an action of negligence?
Apparently you can also have negligent intentional torts, like "negligent battery"Suvat said:This may seem elementary but um... when all the evidence point to an intentional tort, can you still frame it in an action of negligence?
negligent battery? is there a non-negligent method of battery?MoonlightSonata said:Apparently you can also have negligent intentional torts, like "negligent battery"
Direct + intentional, as opposed to direct and unintentional for negligent battery.Minai said:is there a non-negligent method of battery?
how does it work!