Today in jurisprudence

[Dinsdale]

Looks like he caught it a little phat.

[trev]

1. She's not that pretty.

2. She doesn't look good enough to be a top model.

3. She has a bruise on her ass that will heal in about a week.

[mamamustanger]

And she has to be stupid for letting them do it in the first place. Shouldn't get a dime


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moving Sale]

3. She has a bruise on her ass that will heal in about a week.

It happened in 2012.

Mama,
She is suing for negligence AND battery and assumption of the risk is not a defense to battery.

[mamamustanger]

Stupid!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Goober McTuber]

I'd have used a flesh wedge.

[Moving Sale]

Stupid!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Acually its not. The equivalent defense for battery is consent (like in a boxing match) but she appearantly didn't sign a consent form that involved her getting hit in the ass with a golf club by a drunken loser.

[mvscal]

Acually its not. The equivalent defense for battery is consent (like in a boxing match) but she appearantly didn't sign a consent form that involved her getting hit in the ass with a golf club by a drunken loser.

She didn't need to. Her consent was clearly implied when she let said drunken loser tee off from her ass crack. The battery charge is a non-starter.

This is a worker's comp/unsafe working condition type claim if anything.

[Moving Sale]

It was beyond the scope of any implied consent just like when you consent to be ass fucked by a black man he can't just invite 3 friends. I know YOU would not mind but you get my point. You are so stupid I bet you live in some Midwest flyover state with a bunch of stupid rednecks.
It not surprising that you would pick to defend the douchebag instead of the playboy model. Go suck a dick faggot.

[mvscal]

It was beyond the scope of any implied consent

That's your opinion and we all know how little that means.

[Moving Sale]

You are a potato peeler from Ouhomo and I'm a lawyer from the very state this suit was filed in and you think you somehow know more about california law. Now if ca law was a black cock then I would defer to your expertise.

[mvscal]

I'm a lawyer from the very state this suit was filed in and you think you somehow know more about california law.

Yes, I do. Feel free to keep tabs on the story and let the board know of the decision.

[Moving Sale]

This shows just how dumb you are. The chances that there is ever any actual ruling or finding by a jury on the consent issue is very small. This will end in a sealed settlement or some other fashion where the battery defenses are never adjudicated. Nice white flag backpedal though you stupid fucking racist loser. Picked out your death plot in Ouhomo yet?

[mvscal]

This will end in a sealed settlement or some other fashion where the battery defenses are never adjudicated.

Of course it will never be adjudicated. In fact, that would be the last thing the plaintiff would want. There is simply no basis for the charge in law or in fact.

The fact is she did sustain an injury during this event and is reasonably entitled to recover actual damages plus some nominal sum for her trouble. This is what insurance is for.

[Moving Sale]

I understand that you are gay and don't know much about what hot playboy ass is worth but 500k is not that far from what she deserves.

[mvscal]

If she can actually demonstrate that her medical expenses and loss of income for the couple weeks that she was laid up equal $500K then I agree that is what she deserves. I seriously doubt it was even a tenth of that amount, though.

[Moving Sale]

She is already at 33k out of pocket so once again you are an idiot living in a hellhole. Nice life trajectory faggot.

[mvscal]

$33k is less than a tenth of $500K...idiot.

[Carson]

Did you attend the Earl Scheib Law School or something?

[Moving Sale]

$33k is less than a tenth of $500K...idiot.

That's why I said already out of pocket you black cock sucking racist swine. Have fun at the beach this weekend you stupid jug eared Mexican.

[Moving Sale]

Did you attend the Earl Scheib Law School or something?

Go ahead and point out where I'm wrong you smoke blowing ant-brained freak show.

[mvscal]

Go ahead and point out where I'm wrong you smoke blowing ant-brained freak show.

....if you insist.

California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)

1300. Battery—Essential Factual Elements

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] committed a battery. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:


1. That [name of defendant] [touched [name of plaintiff]] [or] [caused [name of plaintiff] to be touched] with the intent to harm or offend [him/her];

2. That [name of plaintiff] did not consent to the touching; and

3. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed [or offended] by [name of defendant]’s conduct; [and]

[4. That a reasonable person in [name of plaintiff]’s situation would have been offended by the touching.]

•“A battery is any intentional, unlawful and harmful contact by one person with the person of another… A harmful contact, intentionally done is the essence of a battery. A contact is ‘unlawful’ if it is unconsented to.” (Ashcraft v. King (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 604, 611 [278 Cal.Rptr. 900], internal citations omitted.)
•“A battery is a violation of an individual’s interest in freedom from intentional, unlawful, harmful or offensive unconsented contacts with his or her person.” (Rains v. Superior Court (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 933, 938 [198 Cal.Rptr. 249].)
•“Although it is not incorrect to say that battery is an unlawful touching, . . . it is redundant to use ‘unlawful’ in defining battery in a jury instruction, and may be misleading to do so without informing the jury what would make the conduct unlawful.” (Barouh v. Haberman (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 40, 45 [31 Cal.Rptr.2d 259], internal citation omitted.)
•“The crimes of assault and battery are intentional torts. In the perpetration of such crimes negligence is not involved. As between the guilty aggressor and the person attacked the former may not shield himself behind the charge that his victim may have been guilty of contributory negligence, for such a plea is unavailable to him.” (Bartosh v. Banning (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 378, 385 [59 Cal.Rptr. 382].)
•Restatement Second of Torts, section 13 provides:

An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if


(a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and

(b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.

•“ ‘It has long been established, both in tort and criminal law, that “the least touching” may constitute battery. In other words, force against the person is enough; it need not be violent or severe, it need not cause bodily harm or even pain, and it need not leave any mark.’ ” (People v. Mansfield (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 82, 88 [245 Cal.Rptr. 800], internal citations omitted.)

Now look at that video again and then go fuck yourself, runtling.

[Moving Sale]

What the fuck are you ranting about you jug eared Mexican? I know the instructions and I saw the video now why don't you actually show something I posted that was wrong you fat flyover fuck.

[Waynegro]

You should see the chick they were using as the ball washer.