Torts, Intent, and Context: Understanding Liability for Assault, Battery, and Negligence

In this episode of American Law Cafe, we break down how courts interpret intent and context in tort law—specifically in cases involving assault, battery, and negligence. Using four compelling cases, we explore how legal standards shift when children, medical professionals, Halloween costumes, or baseball hecklers enter the picture.

Key Topics Covered:

• Intentional Torts: What plaintiffs must prove to establish assault or battery—including how transferred intent and a defendant’s mental state shape liability.
• Negligence vs. Intent: Why the absence of intent doesn’t let defendants off the hook—and when parents can (and can't) be held responsible for their kids.
• Contextual Liability: How social expectations (like trick-or-treating or professional sports) influence what courts deem "reasonable" or "offensive."

Case Highlights:

• Bouton v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1986): A Halloween scare turns deadly—and the court applies a contextual “reasonable person” standard to reject a homeowner’s self-defense claim.
• Manning v. Grimsley (1981): A major league pitcher hurls a ball at hecklers and hits a bystander; the court explains transferred intent and intent through circumstantial evidence.
• Horton v. Reaves: A tragic case involving children, negligence, and whether a parent’s conduct constituted “willful and wanton” behavior.
• Brzoska v. Olson (1995): A dentist with HIV treats patients without disclosing his condition—raising questions about fear, battery, consent, and actual harm.

🎧 Whether you're brushing up on torts for your 1L class or prepping for finals, this episode will sharpen your understanding of how courts balance mental state, social norms, and foreseeability in assigning civil liability.

 Introductory Music for American Law Cafe. In Jazz Short by moodmode / Vlad Krotov.