Davis throws a dagger at Smith, intending to kill Smith. However, the dagger misses Smith and strikes the hat on Potter's head.

Question

3 years ago

13

Davis throws a dagger at Smith, intending to kill Smith. However, the dagger misses Smith and strikes the hat on Potter's head.

The dagger does not make contact with Potter's body. Unharmed but finding the whole thing offensive, Potter sues Davis for battery. Which of the following is most true?
A. Davis is not liable because Potter did not suffer any physical harm.
B. Davis is liable to Potter for battery.
C. Davis is liable to Potter for negligence.
D. Davis is not liable because he did not intend to make contact with Potter.

Social Studies

1 answer:

makkiz [27] · Answer 1 · 2022-03-28T04:43:34+03:00

Answer:

Davis is liable for Potter for battery

Explanation:

Devi's is liable of Potter for battery because the law of doctrine of transferred for intent in which a person intends to hit the person but the miss the chance and hit another person. So according to the tort of law when a person hits and misses the chance but another person got hit by chance then the person who hits are liable for it. Potter can sue Davis for battery because it hits Potter. And it also remembers that the hat which potter was wearing was considered to be a part of Potter and that is enough to constitute the battery.