Scribd
Upload
564 views1 page

Talmage v. Smith

A man threw a stick at some boys playing on sheds on his property, intending to hit one boy but instead hitting the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued for battery. The court affirmed the jury verdict for the plaintiff, holding that a defendant can be liable for battery against an unintended victim if he intends harmful contact against another and uses unreasonable force, because the defendant has no right to commit such an act (Talmage v. Smith, 1894).

Uploaded by

Khalil Hassan Quinan
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
564 views1 page

Talmage v. Smith

A man threw a stick at some boys playing on sheds on his property, intending to hit one boy but instead hitting the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued for battery. The court affirmed the jury verdict for the plaintiff, holding that a defendant can be liable for battery against an unintended victim if he intends harmful contact against another and uses unreasonable force, because the defendant has no right to commit such an act (Talmage v. Smith, 1894).

Uploaded by

Khalil Hassan Quinan
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Torts Chapter II Intentional Interference with Person or Property 1.

Intent

Talmage v. Smith
Supreme Court of Michigan, 1894. 101 Mich. 370, 59 N.W. 656. Justice Montgomery Facts:

Smith () discovered several boys playing on top of sheds on his property. demanded that they get down and most complied quickly, but Talmage () and a few others remained on the roofs. threw a stick in the direction of a few boys on one of the roofs, but the stick missed those boys and struck and injured . sued and recovered on a jury verdict. The jury was instructed that could be liable if he threw the stick with the intent to hit the first boy or and did so with force that was unreasonable under the circumstances. Whether the jury was properly instructed that could be liable if he intended to hit either boy and used unreasonable force? Yes. When a intends to inflict harmful or offensive contact upon one party but instead inflicts such contact upon another, he is liable for the resulting injury.

Procedural History:

Issue(s):

Holding(s) and Rules of Law


Reasoning:

Disposition:

Affirmed, with costs. A s intent to cause physical contact with one party can be considered intent to commit battery against a second party when unreasonable force is used because the has no right to commit such an act.

Conclusion:

Questions/Comments:

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy