II. Assault and Battery: Intent and Autonomy | Jonathan Zittrain | June 24, 2011

H2O

This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.

II. Assault and Battery: Intent and Autonomy

by Jonathan Zittrain Show/Hide

In the absence of statutes that clearly delineate acceptable from unacceptable behavior – that’s the realm of criminal law, and still plenty complicated – tort law often requires a court to draw boundaries on the fly as individual cases come up. Here we look at a cluster of problems arising generally from situations in which society might say the wrongness of an act may be minimal or entirely lacking – yet a victim steps forward to earnestly claim that his or her wishes about bodily integrity have been disrespected.

The rough and tumble of daily life – “the implied license of the playground” – allows some license for those who offend with physical contact, including against the especially sensitive. When does that license end, particularly if a plaintiff’s special sensitivities are known to a defendant? Are there any larger principles at work to help us resolve conflicts in this zone, or that at least capture the instincts that might find themselves in opposition?

EDIT PLAYLIST INFORMATION DELETE PLAYLIST

Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:

MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (0/3 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (3/3 playlist item notes are private)
      1. 1.1.1 Show/Hide More Wishnatsky v. Huey-- “The Overly-Sensitive Intruder”
        Original Creator: Jonathan Zittrain
        Should findings of offensive-contact-battery be based on a plaintiff’s level of sensitivity, or a more general standard?
    1. 1.2 Show/Hide More O'Brien v. Cunard--"The Silent Vaccine Objector"
      Original Creator: Jonathan Zittrain
      Should we expect actors to respect the inner wishes of others, even when those desires contradict—or at least fail to be reflected in—external behavior?
    1. 2.1 Show/Hide More Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications, Inc. -- "The Smoke in the Face Case"
      Original Creator: jcochran Current Version: Jonathan Zittrain
      Should a smoker's license to freely blow his smoke be limited by the sensitivity of non-smokers?
    2. 2.2 Show/Hide More Werth v. Taylor -- "The Blood-Transfusion-Refusing Jehovah's Witness"
      Original Creator: jcochran Current Version: Jonathan Zittrain
      Should health care professionals be allowed to administer life-saving, emergency treatment when there is a possibility that the patient would have refused?
    1. 3.1 Show/Hide More Womack v. Eldridge--"The Distressing Accusation of Molestation"
      Original Creator: Jonathan Zittrain
      Should we hold people accountable for causing severe distress in others, even if no physical contact—or the threat thereof—was involved?
Close

Playlist Information

October 17, 2013

Author Stats

Jonathan Zittrain

Other Playlists by Jonathan Zittrain

Find Items

Search below to find items, then drag and drop items onto playlists you own. To add items to nested playlists, you must first expand those playlists.

SEARCH
Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large