Tort briefs 8:23:21 case briefs on cases PDF

Preview

Summary

case briefs about torts in class in the university of arkansas and just i want to unlock an document so uploading this now...

Description

McGuire v Almy History:

Facts: August 1930, the plaintiff was employed to take care of the defendant. The plaintiff was a registered nurse, and the defendant was an insane person. On April 19, 1932, the defendant, while locked in her room, had a violent attack. The plaintiff stepped into the room while the maid and the defendant’s brother-in-law remained in the doorway. As the plaintiff approached the defendant and tried to take hold of the defendant’s hand which held the leg of a low-boy, the defendant struck the plaintiff’s head with it. Plaintiff sued the defendant for assault and battery. The trial court denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict and entered judgment in favor of plaintiff based upon a jury verdict. On appeal, the state supreme court affirmed, because it determined the jury could find that the defendant was capable of entertaining and that she did entertain an intent to strike and to injure the plaintiff and that she acted upon that intent. Because defendant had the requisite intent, the state supreme court reasoned, despite her insanity, defendant was liable for damages resulting from her intentional acts. Issue: can an insane person be held liable for his acts that cause injuries to others? Rule: where an insane person by his act does intentional damage to the person or property of another, he is liable for that damage in the same circumstances in which a normal person would be liable. This means that in so far as a particular intent would be necessary in order to render a normal person liable, the insane person, in order to be liable, must have been capable of entertaining that same intent and must have entertained it in fact. Holding: Yes Conclusion: It is apparent that the jury could find that the defendant was capable of entertaining and that she did entertain an intent to strike and to injure the plaintiff and that she acted upon that intent. defendant was liable for that damage even though insane.

Courvoisier v Raymond Plaintiff/appellee: Raymond Defendant/appellant: Courvoisier History: at trial, the jury was instructed that if it found that Raymond was not attacking Courvoisier at the time he was shot, it should enter judgment for Raymond. The jury found for Raymond; Courvoisier appealed. Facts: defendant was woken up by people trying to break into his jewelry store. Defendant took his revolver in attempt to scare them away and fired in the air. The shots attracted police officers who were across the street. The officers started toward the defendant, who continued to shoot. One of the shots entered the policeman abdomen. Plaintiff sued defendant for his injuries on the ground that the plaintiff recklessly fired the shot. Issue: Whether the defendant mistook the plaintiff for one of the rioters, and if such mistake was in fact made, was it excusable in the light of all the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the commission of the act? Rule: defendant can plead self-defense even if he mistakenly thought that he was under attack. Holding: no Conclusion: judgment reversed...