Law Question [torts] (1 Viewer)

[MouNtY]

EDIT: everyone except natstar.........






































JKS.......you know we all lov ya

 

[Minai]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Yeah, negligent battery anyone?

 

[neo o]

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.

is there a non-negligent method of battery?
how does it work!

Direct + intentional, as opposed to direct and unintentional for negligent battery.

 

[noneother]

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]

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.