CL555 Module 2 Battery Mini Essay Assignment Please follow the steps below to complete your mini essay assignment. This is an OPEN BOOK assignment. There is no specific page limit or time limit for this assignment. A. All essay assignments, including this Mini Essay Assignment, should be written in the IRAC format. Issue - the legal question you are going to answer; Rule - the rule you will use to answer the legal question; Analysis - where you apply the rule to the facts; Conclusion - your answer to the legal question based on applying the rule to the facts. If a rule has "elements" exact same IRAC format. - each element has its own rule, so apply that to the facts using the Example IRAC organization: The issue is... The rule for X is... [element 1, element 2...] Element 1: The rule for element 1 is... Apply the rule for element 1 to the facts Conclude whether the rule for element 1 is proven. Element 2: The rule for element 2 is... Apply the rule for element 2 to the facts Conclude whether the rule for element 2 is proven. [...] Conclusion When you get to the end, if you conclude all the elements of the rule have been met, write your final conclusion stating the overall rule has been met. If not, write the opposite conclusion. B. Identify Your Essay Appropriately: 1. 2. Put your name, student ID, and the name of the assignment (Module 2 Battery Mini Essay Assignment) in your document; and, Assignments must be submitted as one Word document even if the assignment has more than one component. Your Word file should be named your last name, space, course number, space, Mod, space, and the module number, for example: MacDonald CL555 Mod 3. Do not use any other file name or format - do not add underscores or anything else; save the file exactly as this example shows. Mini Essay Fact Pattern Sally and Martha are at a bar playing pool when Martha decides to tell Sally that she previously dated Sally's current boyfriend. Sally becomes very angry and tries to hit Martha with her pool cue. Martha ducks, Sally misses Martha, and hits Lisa in the back instead. Lisa cries out in pain. Discuss Lisa's potential claim for battery against Sally.

This assignment addresses the following module outcomes:

Define the elements of battery.

Analyze a hypothetical to determine if the elements of battery are met.

It also addresses the following Course Outcomes:

CL555-2: Analyze tort law fact patterns utilizing governing rules and principles to determine whether the elements of intentional torts have been met.

CL555-3: Organize legal principles in an accurate and logical manner.

CL555 Foundations of Law School Excellence (FLEX) Module 2: Introduction to Battery Video Transcript 1. Welcome to an introduction to the intentional tort of Battery. This module will review the elements of Battery and discuss a couple of cases that illustrate the tort of battery. 2. In law school, your torts class will cover intentional and unintentional torts, commonly called negligence. As discussed in your casebook reading, negligent torts usually consist of careless wrongdoing or an accident that results in harm. Intentional torts involve conduct that meets a level of intentionality. This course and this presentation will focus on intentional torts, where many tort classes begin. We will discuss the tort of Battery and, specifically, the essential element of intent and refer to a few case examples that will help to explain that element and how it is applied. 3. As you learn the law of Torts, it is essential to remember the purposes of tort law. Knowing the purpose of tort law can help you understand the cases and provide some context for the court's decisions, so keep these points in mind as you read the cases. Positive legal rights of the victim: Since torts usually involve some harm to an individual and you cannot undo the damage, the legal rights usually are some form of compensation an individual may be owed. The rights and duties of members of society are related to what is fair for all individuals, setting and upholding some fairness in society. Tort law also deters those who engage in careless conduct by holding these individuals liable for their harm. It serves as a deterrence for future risky behavior. Finally, there are benefits to future victims and tortfeasors in that the cost of preventing or paying for services is less than the ultimate harm. Still, the purpose is also one of efficiency in society. 4. Every type of tort has elements, not like a periodic table of elements, but more like a circuit breaker. If you have a source of electricity. There is a switch, a wire and a light bulb, only if the switch is switched on and there is an uninterrupted circuit between all four things--the source, switch, wire, and bulb: do you have light. If you are missing any one of the four, you don't have the completed circuit to generate light. So, too, a tort may have four (or any number) of elements that must be met for the tort to be established. Having three out of four isn't sufficient to meet the tort. You need all of them. The requirements of a tort are called elements. The elements are all connected, and all are legal requirements that must be met to establish that a tort occurred. A plaintiff must allege the elements of a tort and establish that the elements were met in their complaint, and they must prove the elements were met at trial. Meeting the elements is called making a prima facie case. If that is done, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish some defense that would allow them to avoid liability. 5. The elements of battery are intent to cause harmful or offensive contact plus that harmful or offensive contact actually occurs. When you are discussing battery as a cause of action you must prove that both of these elements are met. 6. The first element of an intentional tort is intent. An intentional act in torts is an intent to act followed by the action itself. It cannot be an involuntary act (like sleepwalking or involuntary muscle spasms). Also, Intent in battery must be purposeful. Purposeful intent requires a volitional act. That is, the person has to desire to commit the act. Your textbook references the third Restatement of torts, which defines Intent. A Restatement is a treatise, a secondary authority on a particular subject, that summarizes the general principles of tort law. The Restatement of Torts is widely relied upon and cited by the courts. You should note that the Restatement is not a source of law but rather a secondary authority that provides guidance on the common law. If you recall from module one, the common law is a body of law that is derived from judicial opinion. Your textbook provides the Restatement (Third), a definition of the intent element of battery. Under the Restatement, Intent is defined as a person who acts with the Intent to produce a consequence if: o the person acts with the purpose of producing that consequence; or o the person acts knowing that the consequence is substantially certain to result. In the subsequent slides, we will review what is meant by "purposeful" Intent and what is meant by "substantial certainty." 7. Intent is a voluntary act and the person desires to commit the act. The person must purposefully commit the act. They need not intend to commit the resulting harm for battery to be present. In your reading material, the case of Guille v. Swan, the court explains that if the act of the defendant causes the immediate harm, whether the resulting harm was intentional or not intentional, the intent element is met. In that case, the defendant did not intend for the plaintiff's garden to be trampled but he did intend to ride in the balloon and had to be aware that the balloon had to descend somewhere, even if he had no control over where it would land. Thus, he did not intend the resulting harm, but he did intend the act of riding and landing the balloon. "Substantial certainty" may also satisfy the element of intent. As illustrated by the Villa v Derouen case where the defendant placed the torch between the plaintiff's legs and he intended to spray the plaintiff with the oxygen. The court stated that it would be unreasonable for a jury to find that the defendant did not intend for the air from the torch to come into contact with the plaintiff or it would be unreasonable not to find that the defendant was substantially certain that it would come into contact with the plaintiff's body. Villa v Derouen illustrates that one does not have to desire to cause the harm, rather if they know or a reasonable person would know that such an act would cause a harmful contact, then that satisfies the element of intent as well. 8. One issue that sometimes comes up regarding the intent requirement for battery is a concept known as "transferred intent." This is where the Defendant intends to make contact with one person but ends up making contact with a different person instead. You might think that since the Defendant only meant to make contact with Person A, he couldn't be found liable for battery for making contact with Person B. However, the doctrine of transferred intent holds that if a defendant meets the requisite intent with respect to one person but unintentionally harms another person, the "intent" transfers from the intended person to the person harmed. For example, using the case of Derouen, if Derouen had intended to make contact with Mr. Jones but accidentally hit Mr. Villa, the rules of transferred intent would still allow Mr. Villa to bring a lawsuit. Just because the Defendant missed his intended target doesn't get him off the hook. Also, intent can be transferred if a defendant intends to commit an assault (just frighten someone) but instead commits a battery; that intent can be transferred to satisfy the intent of the other tort. Assault is an intentional tort that does not require actual contact but rather the reasonable apprehension of harmful or offensive contact. If Mr. Derouen pointed the blow torch at Mr. Villa and intended to frighten him, but his actions resulted in Mr. Villa being burned, he could be held liable for battery because the intent element would transfer. 9. We've discussed the element of intent, now let's turn to what counts as "contact" for the purposes of battery. When you think about contact the initial thought is probably actual contact. Someone actually touching another person. That will certainly satisfy the element of contact in battery if the contact is non-consensual. Such was the case in Villa v. Derouen where actual contact was made with the person of Mr. Villa