About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations 1 (July 2017 through April 2018)

handle is hein.ali/rethtort0010 and id is 1 raw text is: TORTS 3D: INTENTIONAL TORTS TO PERSONS (DRAFTS) CHAPTER 1. DEFINITIONS OF INTENTIONAL TORTS TO PERSONS; TRANSFERRED INTENT § 2. Battery: Required Intent N.D.Ohio.2016. Com. (b) and illus. 5 cit. and quot. in sup. (citing and quoting com. (f) and illus. 11 of § 101 of D.D. 2014). Law professor brought an action against his colleague, another law professor and the interim dean of the school, alleging assault and battery arising from an encounter in a law-school hallway where defendant touched plaintiff's shoulder and directed him to the faculty lounge for a discussion. Following a bench trial, this court entered judgment for defendant, holding that plaintiff failed to prove either of his claims, noting that defendant did not intend his touch to be harmful or offensive, and the touch was neither physically harmful nor considered offensive to a reasonable person's sense of dignity. In its discussion of the appropriate intent required for imposing liability for battery in Ohio and the absence of clear guidance in Ohio caselaw, the court cited to the single-intent approach set forth in Restatement Third of Torts: Intentional Torts to Persons § 101 (D.D. 2014) and explained in Comment f to that section. Gerber v. Veltri, 203 F.Supp.3d 846, 852, 853. § 5. Assault N.D.Ohio.2016. Com. (f) quot. in sup. (quoting com. (f) of § 103 of D.D. 2014). Law professor brought an action against his colleague, another law professor and the interim dean of the school, alleging assault and battery arising from an encounter in a law-school hallway where defendant touched plaintiff's shoulder and directed him to the faculty lounge for a discussion. Following a bench trial, this court entered judgment for defendant, holding that plaintiff failed to prove either of his claims, noting that defendant did not intend his touch to be harmful or offensive, and the touch was neither physically harmful nor considered offensive to a reasonable person's sense of dignity. In its discussion of the appropriate intent required for imposing liability for assault under Ohio law, the court referred to the dual-intent standard set forth in Restatement Third of Torts: Intentional Torts to Persons § 103 (D.D. 2014), under which an actor had to intend to cause another to apprehend that a harmful or offensive contact was imminent. Gerber v. Veltri, 203 F.Supp.3d 846, 852, 854. A L Im For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most