in conduct so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport Knight v. Jewett Negligent injury in sports provides no duty on the basis of policy Inherent danger Flood of litigation Vigorous activity Assessing negligence is difficult Minority No bar Danger of spectators…sports spectators Spectators are not allowed to sue for negligence Policy the experience in order to protect high B…costs would go up if low P low L Even if it is a foreign tourist because D would reasonably assume that P knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of being at the event ________________________________________________________________________ INTENTIONAL INTENT General Principle Intent must at least bring about some sort of physical or mental effect upon another person, but does not need to include a desire to that person “harm” DUTY IS NOT AN ISSUE IN INTENTIONAL TORTS AND SL Applies to negligence Intent to commit a different tort….TRANSFERRED INTENT R2 § 18(1): a person who intends to commit one intentional tort and in fact commits another is liable for the tort actually committed, apparently applies no matter kinds of torts are involved Substantial Certainty an occurrence is obviously if an actor desires to bring it about. But tort “intentional” law also calls it intentional if the actor didn’t desire it, but knew with substantial certainty that it would occur as a result of his action most people would know with substantial certainty, therefore I can infer that D acted this way Garratt v. Dailey
in conduct so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport Knight v. Jewett Negligent injury in sports provides no duty on the basis of policy Inherent danger Flood of litigation Vigorous activity Assessing negligence is difficult Minority No bar Danger of spectators…sports spectators Spectators are not allowed to sue for negligence Policy the experience in order to protect high B…costs would go up if low P low L Even if it is a foreign tourist because D would reasonably assume that P knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of being at the event ________________________________________________________________________ INTENTIONAL INTENT General Principle Intent must at least bring about some sort of physical or mental effect upon another person, but does not need to include a desire to “harm” that person DUTY IS NOT AN ISSUE IN INTENTIONAL TORTS AND SL Applies to negligence Intent to commit a different tort….TRANSFERRED INTENT R2 § 18(1): a person who intends to commit one intentional tort and in fact commits another is liable for the tort actually committed, apparently applies no matter kinds of torts are involved Substantial Certainty an occurrence is obviously “intentional” if an actor desires to bring it about. But tort law also calls it intentional if the actor didn’t desire it, but knew with substantial certainty that it would occur as a result of his action most people would know with substantial certainty, therefore I can infer that D acted this way Garratt v. Dailey
Torts%20-%20Suter%20-%202009.docx