a. Insanity
defense. D shot and killed P then went to woods with infant
daughter, naked, and was hallucinating. Criminal court found D Not Guilty by
insanity (paranoid schizophrenia).
b. P’s
family sued for wrongful death, D was found to be Liable.
i.
Insanity is NOT a defense for torts. If
a lunatic is not held Liable, family and friends of the lunatic will have no
motive to take care of them. Also, then D’s of torts will be tempted to fake
insanity.
ii.
Furthermore, lunatics do “act”. Only
reflexive and epileptic movements are not considered acts: “A muscular reaction
is always an act unless it is a purely reflexive reaction in which the mind and
will have no share”.
c. Where
the act of D is voluntary, intent element is satisfied, even though D is insane
d. Even
though D found not guilty by reason of insanity in criminal trial for murder, D
can still be liable for intentional tort of murder
e. Where
D’s act was because of epilepsy, such involuntary act is not intent for batter
tort
No comments:
Post a Comment