Case Brief #4

1. Case Name: Ranson(Defendant/Appellant) v. Kitner(Plaintiff/Appellee)

2. Court & Date: Supreme Court of Illinois, 1889
3. Procedural History: The jury concluded that the Defendant was liable for the value of
the dog and granted a judgment of $50 in damages. The Defendant appealed to the
Supreme Court of Illinois where they affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
4. Questions Presented: Can someone be committing an intentional tort if when they
committed the action they were acting in good faith?
5. Trigger Facts: The Defendant was hunting for wolves and came across the Plaintiff’s
dog, who had a very similar appearance to one. The Defendant killed the dog believing it
to be a wolf.
6. Plaintiff’s Argument: Defendant had the intent to kill the Plaintiff's dog even though he
mistook it to be a wolf and killed the dog in good faith.
7. Defendant’s Argument: When he was out hunting for wolves, he mistook the dog to be
one and killed it in good faith.
8. Rule: A person is liable for damages even if it is due to their own mistaken
understanding of the facts. Good faith is not necessarily a factor.
9. Reasoning: Even though the Defendant made a mistake and was acting in good faith,
he still intended to kill the animal.
10. Holding: Yes
11. Main takeaway (legal principle): Making a mistake does not rule out intent, even if teh
action was done with good faith.