The case of Angelina and Brad implies the need to consider it from a legal perspective. Due to the presence of numerous occasions of both assault and battery, it corresponds to the commitment of intentional torts towards persons. The conflict between the participants started with Brad, who ordered his dog to bite his ex-wife’s boyfriend. The dog, however, bit Angelina’s expensive silk pants, and this situation provided the basis for the confrontation development. Consequently, Brad jumped into the swimming pool in the gym so that Angelina was covered with water. Even though he claimed it was unintentional, Angelina took revenge by smashing Brad’s Ferrari windshield with a baseball bat and leaving an offensive note for him. Therefore, both parties committed specific actions that should be thoroughly analyzed.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
In the case under consideration, the principal applicable rule belongs to a specific category of offenses referred to as intentional torts. Their first type is an assault, and this crime is less serious since it implies the lack of physical contact and, therefore, the absence of harm of this nature (Geistfeld 159). However, it might include emotional damage and psychological violence, which makes it a case for investigation in court.
Another type of intentional torts is battery, and its occurrence means more severe consequences than in the case of an assault. The principal difference between these two kinds of offenses is in the presence of physical contact and damage to property when the former happens (Geistfeld 160). The commitment to the battery also evokes the need to protect the rightsholders’ interests in personal affairs and implies strict liability for offenders.
The first type of intentional torts in the case under consideration is assault. It is characterized by the intention to harm a person without actually fulfilling it and implies the lack of contact and, consequently, the absence of physical damage (Geistfeld 160). One of the most evident examples of this offense is Brad’s aggressive attitude towards his ex-wife’s boyfriend. Hence, his actions, more specifically, ordering the dog to bite the man, fall under this category or this type of criminal behavior. The same partially applies to their response of Angelina to his inappropriate conduct. She left a note with offensive content intended to hurt Brad’s feelings and thereby caused emotional damage (Geistfeld 159). Therefore, this offense can also be ascribed to her actions.
The second type of intentional torts in the conflict between Brad and Angelina is a battery. This kind of criminal behavior demonstrated by both participants is similar to assault because of the intention to commit an action, which can be viewed as an offense. Nevertheless, the difference between them is in physical contact resulting in property damage or involved persons (Geistfeld 161). Brad’s actions corresponding to this type of crime are related to the fact that his dog bit Angelina’s clothes and thereby spoilt them. The same applies to the situation when he jumped into the swimming pool. Angelina, in turn, committed a battery by intentionally grabbing a baseball bat and smashing the windshield of Brad’s car parked by the gym, which makes her guilty as well.
To summarize, both parties in the case, Brad and Angelina, can be accused of intentional torts against the persons. The former’s participation in the process was connected to the orders given to his dog and his behavior in the swimming pool, which, as he claimed, caused unintentional damage. The latter, in turn, committed only one offense, which was intentional and led to specific losses as well. In this way, it can be concluded that the actions of Brad and Angelina should be viewed as a combination of assault and battery in each situation.
Geistfeld, Mark A. “Conceptualizing the Intentional Torts.” Journal of Tort Law, vol. 10, no. 2, 2018, pp. 159–196. De Gruyter.
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as