MedVision ad

Law Question [torts] (1 Viewer)

MouNtY

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Messages
598
EDIT: everyone except natstar......... :p






































JKS.......you know we all lov ya
 

Minai

Alumni
Joined
Jul 7, 2002
Messages
7,458
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
Uni Grad
2006
DooNy_TeChY said:
can i just say wateva uni's or wateva your currently doing....your people are very lucky to have yous
well, you'd need to be bright just to get into UNSW Law school
 

Suvat

part timer
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
645
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
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?
 

Lazarus

Retired
Joined
Jul 6, 2002
Messages
5,965
Location
CBD
Gender
Male
HSC
2001
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?
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).

Anyway, in those instances I think it would be possible to bring actions in both torts.
 

Suvat

part timer
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
645
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Hey tnx Laz :)

Besides possibly being easier to prove negligence than intent, would there be any other reason why plaintiffs would choose to frame their action in negligence rather than an intentional tort such as battery? Would the damages awarded to the plaintiff be assessed differently between actions of negligence and battery if all other factors were held constant?
 

Lazarus

Retired
Joined
Jul 6, 2002
Messages
5,965
Location
CBD
Gender
Male
HSC
2001
I can't imagine the damages assessment being different.

Generally, a plaintiff would just try to bring all possible actions with the hope that one succeeds.
 

MoonlightSonata

Retired
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
3,645
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
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" :)
 

Minai

Alumni
Joined
Jul 7, 2002
Messages
7,458
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
Uni Grad
2006
MoonlightSonata said:
Apparently you can also have negligent intentional torts, like "negligent battery" :)
negligent battery? is there a non-negligent method of battery?
how does it work!
 

Ziff

Active Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
Messages
2,366
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Yeah, negligent battery anyone?
 

neo o

it's coming to me...
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
3,294
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I've been asking people for a week now, noone knows.

Negligent battery = an unintentional but direct trespass. And from what I've seen it's pretty much a case of determining whether there is a duty, and whether the defendant breached that duty. I don't know of any other tests.

Minai said:
is there a non-negligent method of battery?
how does it work!
Direct + intentional, as opposed to direct and unintentional for negligent battery.
 

noneother

the Cho is great
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
454
Location
Canberra
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
So with the assignment do we prove that there is a breach of duty and then say there is also a trespass to the person because of that breach?
 

MoonlightSonata

Retired
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
3,645
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
You don't need to mention 'negligent battery', and do not say "trespass to the person." Refer to the main texts for battery, and apply the relevant tests.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top