Posted: September 7th, 2017

Randall is being sued for battery because he hit Tom on the head with a baseball bat, causing a serious skull fracture. Randall claims that he did not have the intent to cause a harmful or offensive touching on Tom, and so Tom cannot meet his burden of proof for the intent element of battery. Which of the following situations would allow Randall to prevail on his intent argument?

Randall is being sued for battery because he hit Tom on the head with a baseball bat, causing a
serious skull fracture. Randall claims that he did not have the intent to cause a harmful or
offensive touching on Tom, and so Tom cannot meet his burden of proof for the intent element
of battery. Which of the following situations would allow Randall to prevail on his intent
argument?
a) Randall meant to hit Tom hard enough to hurt him, but he never meant to crack his skull.
b) Randall was insane and thought that Tom was a ghost, and he thought that the bat would pass
through ghost-Tom in a way that would be amusing, not harmful or offensive.
c) From where Randall was standing, Tom really looked like Fred, which is who Randall really
wanted to hit. If Randall had known it was Tom, he never would have hit him.
d) Randall’s purpose was to practice swinging his bat, not to hit Tom. He knew that Tom’s head
was there, but a lack of purpose is a lack of intent, so he is only liable under a negligence theory
for being careless.