Torts
Randall is being sued for battery because he hit Tom on the head with a baseball bat, causing a serious skull fracture. Randall claims that he had no intent (which in this jurisdiction, for battery, is "the intent to cause a harmful or offensive touching to plaintiff's person"), and so he says that Tom cannot meet his burden of proof for the intent element of battery. Which of the following situations would give Randall the best chance of prevailing on his lack-of-intent argument?
1 - Randall meant to hit Tom hard enough to hurt him, but he never meant to crack Tom's skull.
2 - Randall was insane and thought that Tom was a ghost. Randall thought that the bat would pass through ghost-Tom in a way that would be amusing and neither harmful nor offensive.
3 - From where Randall was standing, Tom really looked like Fred, which is who Randall really wanted to hit. If Randall had known it was Tom, he never would have hit him.
4 - Randall's purpose was to practice swinging his bat, not to hit Tom. He knew that Tom's head would be in the bat's path, but a lack of purpose is a lack of intent, so Randall could be liable only under a negligence theory for being careless.
1 - Randall meant to hit Tom hard enough to hurt him, but he never meant to crack Tom's skull.
2 - Randall was insane and thought that Tom was a ghost. Randall thought that the bat would pass through ghost-Tom in a way that would be amusing and neither harmful nor offensive.
3 - From where Randall was standing, Tom really looked like Fred, which is who Randall really wanted to hit. If Randall had known it was Tom, he never would have hit him.
4 - Randall's purpose was to practice swinging his bat, not to hit Tom. He knew that Tom's head would be in the bat's path, but a lack of purpose is a lack of intent, so Randall could be liable only under a negligence theory for being careless.
Click the card to flip 👆
