JENKINS was in a crowded pub and was larking about with her friends. She decided to throw a pint of beer over her friend BRYANT. Unfortunately the glass slipped out of her hand and smashed in BRYANT's face, causing cuts which required stitches.
In relation to assault occasioning actual bodily harm, what must be proved?
A Intention to commit any type of assault.
B Intention to cause the harm actually caused.
C Recklessness as to the assault itself.
D Recklessness as to the injury actually caused.
2007-01-28 04:35:48 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Tort Law is very specific here. The Tort of Assault requires an intentional act, without excuse or legal defense, that puts a reasonable person in fear of an immediate harmful or offensve touching of their person. In your hypo the tortfeasor clearly acted with intent to throw the beer. Under the "but for" test of actual causation, if she doesnt throw the beer, the glass doesnt slip and the injury doesnt happen so actual causation is proved. Legal causation requires reasonable foreseeabilityof a result. If you throw beer from a glass, it is certainly foreseeable that you might lose your grip on the glass. You dont say what the distance between the two was, and that would factor into the answer. But, based on the intentional act, legal causation can probably be inferred.
Now the argument that jenkins didnt intend to throw the glass is refuted by the "Transferred Intent" doctrine, which holds that if a tortfeasor sets the instrument of injury in motion, and the victim as here is struck by the glass instead of just the beer, the Tort of
Battery is committed, since the original intent transfers to the second tort. So the legal answer to yourquestion is A, as systematically proven infra.
2007-01-28 04:49:40 · answer #1 · answered by Jeffrey V 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting hypothetical. Assault is generally an intent specific crime. Therefore, A-C, which require proof of intent, may not be plausible answers. D does not appear to require specific intent, and the use of the word "recklessness" infers that the person committed the action while aware of the potential consequences which could have occurred. This is more in line with criminal or culpable negligence, as the scenario suggests.
2007-01-28 20:32:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mens Rea.
2007-01-28 12:45:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Stupidity for throwing a bottle to begin with.
2007-01-28 12:40:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You should do your own homework
2007-01-28 13:23:19 · answer #5 · answered by philly 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a and c
2007-01-28 12:40:06 · answer #6 · answered by glamour04111 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋