Should Defendant be liable for the tort of “trespass to chattels” with respect to Bs dog?
And what about Defendant’s intentional tort liability for B’s emotional distress (i.e., intentional infliction of emotional distress). Clearly, Defendant never intended to interfere in any way with B’s dog. He was merely shooting at a tree in the woods. Likewise, since he was unaware of the presence of B’s dog, he could scarcely have intended to cause any emotional distress to B. Just how far should the concept of “transferred intent” be allowed to extend? These, and similar questions, were answered by early common law courts with a fairly consistent approach that is follwed even today with respect to the concept of “transferred intent.” These courts simply concluded that the Defendant’s intent “follows the bullet!” Thus, in the example, supra, the Defendant would be liable to B for the tort of trespass to chattels. However, since the bullet stopped with the dog, the Defendant’s intent was said to extend only that far, Thus, B could not also recover for intentional infliction of emotio
Related Questions
- After my dog bite attack in Doylestown PA, the Defendants homeowners insurance company contacted me and requested a recorded statement. Should I given them one?
- Is the City of Roanoke liable if there is a dog fight or personal injury at the dog park?
- Should Defendant be liable for the tort of "trespass to chattels" with respect to Bs dog?
