The Throw That Missed Its Mark

Question:

At a local park, Jim is playing catch with his 12-year-old son. Nearby, Jim’s co-worker, Sarah, is having lunch. Jim notices Sarah and recalls a recent argument they had at work. In a fit of frustration, Jim intentionally throws the ball at Sarah with the intent to scare her. However, just as the ball is about to hit Sarah, she ducks, and the ball strikes a nearby elderly man, Mr. Baker, in the head, causing him to fall and break his wrist. Mr. Baker sues Jim for battery. Discuss whether Jim can be held liable for battery against Mr. Baker.

Baseline Response

Issue:
The primary issue is whether Jim can be held liable for battery against Mr. Baker under the doctrine of transferred intent. Specifically, the question is whether Jim’s intent to cause harmful or offensive contact with Sarah can be transferred to Mr. Baker, even though Jim did not intend to strike him.

Rule:
Battery occurs when a defendant intentionally causes harmful or offensive contact with another person. The required elements of battery, as clarified in McElhaney v. Thomas, are: (1) an intentional act, (2) that results in harmful or offensive contact, (3) that is unprivileged. Furthermore, the doctrine of transferred intent allows the defendant’s intent to harm one person to be transferred if another person is unintentionally harmed. Under Garratt v. Dailey, intent in battery can be established if the defendant knows with substantial certainty that contact will occur, even if they do not specifically desire to cause harm.

Application (Analysis):
In this case, Jim intended to throw the ball at Sarah to scare her, which suggests that he intended to create an offensive or harmful contact or at least the apprehension of such contact. Even though Sarah ducked, Jim’s intent to cause offensive contact to her can be transferred to Mr. Baker under the doctrine of transferred intent. The fact that the contact was unintentional does not absolve Jim of liability. The ball hitting Mr. Baker in the head, causing him to fall and break his wrist, constitutes harmful contact, satisfying the second element of battery.

Jim’s intent to contact Sarah, coupled with the harmful contact to Mr. Baker, meets the requirements for transferred intent. Jim’s intent to throw the ball at Sarah, knowing it could result in contact, aligns with the standard of substantial certainty outlined in Garratt v. Dailey. Since Mr. Baker was directly harmed by Jim’s actions, Jim’s liability for battery can be established through transferred intent.

Counterarguments:
Jim may argue that he did not intend to harm Mr. Baker, and therefore cannot be held liable for battery. However, under the doctrine of transferred intent, it is irrelevant whether Jim specifically intended to strike Mr. Baker; his intent to harm or scare Sarah is sufficient to hold him liable for the unintended contact with Mr. Baker. Additionally, Jim might argue that his actions were not substantially certain to result in contact with anyone other than Sarah. However, the fact that Jim threw a ball in a public space where other people were present weakens this defense, as the likelihood of hitting someone other than Sarah was foreseeable.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, Jim can be held liable for battery against Mr. Baker under the doctrine of transferred intent. Jim’s intent to cause offensive contact with Sarah is transferred to Mr. Baker when the ball hit him instead. The harmful contact, coupled with Jim’s intent to cause harm or fear, satisfies the legal requirements for battery. Any defense that Jim did not intend to hit Mr. Baker would fail due to the application of transferred intent, making Jim liable for Mr. Baker’s injuries.