Case Brief #3

1. Case Name: Talmage(Plaintiff) v. Smith(Defendant)

2. Court & Date: Supreme Court of Michigan, 1864
3. Procedural History: The jury of the trial court made a verdict that was in favor of the
plaintiff. After this verdict, the Defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court of
Michigan. The judgment was affirmed with costs.
4. Questions Presented: If the Defendant intended to hurt another person besides the
Plaintiff, is he still liable for the Plaintiff's injuries and damages?
5. Trigger Facts: Defendant had some sheds on his land. When approaching the sheds he
saw 6-8 boys on the roof of one of them. Defendant orders the boys to get down off of
the sheds and they did as he asked. The Defendant then found two other boys on the
roof of another shed. He ordered them off the roof as well. As they started to get down,
the Defendant threw a stick at them. It did not hit the boys that he saw, but missed and
hit the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was hit above his eye and lost total eyesight in his left eye.
6. Plaintiff’s Argument: The Defendant intended to commit battery due to the fact that
even though it wasn’t intended for the Plaintiff it was still meant to harm another person.
7. Defendant’s Argument: He did not see the Plaintiff on the roof with the other boys. The
battery was not intended for the Plaintiff but for another boy.
8. Rule: Transferred intent is when a person intends to harm one person but then
unintentionally harms another.
9. Reasoning: The Defendant had the intent to commit battery against a person. It does
not matter if it was the Plaintiff or not because he is still liable due to his intent. This
intent is then transferred from the person he intended to harm to the person he actually
harmed.
10. Holding: The jury sided in favor of the Plaintiff due to the fact that even though the
action was not intended for the Plaintiff, the Defendant still intended to hit another person
and caused injury to them. Even though the injury was not inflicted on the intended
person, it does not relieve him of the responsibility.
11. Main takeaway (legal principle): When one intends to commit battery or assault, even
if it is intended for a different person, they are still liable for the outcome and damages.