Talmage v. Smith
1894 Mich. LEXIS 938, 101 Mich. 370, 59 N.W. 656 (1894)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of transferred intent, a defendant who intends to commit a tortious act (such as battery) against one person is liable for any harm that results to another person, even if the harm to the second person was unintentional.
Facts:
- The defendant, Smith, owned property with several sheds.
- In the evening, Smith discovered a group of boys on the roofs of his sheds.
- Smith ordered the boys to get down and then saw two more boys, including one named Byron Smith, on another shed.
- Smith picked up a stick, approximately 2x2 inches thick and 16 inches long, and threw it in the direction of Byron Smith.
- The stick missed its intended target, Byron Smith.
- The stick struck the plaintiff, Talmage, who was also on the roof but may not have been seen by Smith.
- The impact of the stick caused an injury to Talmage that resulted in the total loss of sight in one eye.
- Smith later admitted that he threw the stick with the intention of hitting Byron Smith.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, Talmage, sued the defendant, Smith, in a trial court for trespass (battery).
- A jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendant, Smith, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Michigan.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant liable for an injury to an unintended person when he uses unreasonable force with the intent to harm another person, but accidentally strikes the unintended person instead?
Opinions:
Majority - Montgomery, J.
Yes. A defendant is liable for an injury to an unintended person when he commits a wrongful act with the intent to harm another. The court held that the defendant's intention to commit an unlawful act by using unreasonable force against one boy transfers to the unintended victim who was actually injured. The fact that the plaintiff was a trespasser does not absolve the defendant from liability for a willful and unwarranted injury. The defendant's liability was established by his intention to hit someone with excessive force, making his act unlawful from the outset. Therefore, he is responsible for the consequences that followed, regardless of whether the resulting injury was to his intended target or another individual.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational example of the tort doctrine of transferred intent, specifically in the context of battery. It clarifies that the defendant's general wrongful intent is the critical element, not the identity of the specific victim. The ruling establishes that a defendant cannot escape liability for battery by claiming they had poor aim or were unaware of the actual victim's presence. This precedent solidifies the principle that the wrongfulness of an act is judged by the actor's state of mind and intent to cause harm, and the law will hold them responsible for the natural and direct consequences of that act, even if the victim is unexpected.
Unlock the full brief for Talmage v. Smith