writing a CREAC structure legal analysis. (law class)

CREAC Exercise

Instructions

Read the text below. Then write a CREAC structure legal analysis.

Fact Pattern

Warren is about to meet with his professor, Dr. Smith, for a mandatory conference after his initial writing assignment was returned to him. He is unhappy with his grade, and has decided to confront his professor instead of asking for advice on how to do better in the future.

Warren angrily storms into her office without knocking. He rudely asks his professor why she gave him the grade that she did. Dr. Smith explains that she didn’t “give” him the grade. Rather, he had “earned” the grade. Dr. Smith then offers to go over his writing assignment in more detail. She shows Warren several specific examples in his paper to demonstrate how he earned his particular grade. She also offers some advice about things he could do to quickly improve his writing.

Not satisfied with her response, Warren abruptly stands up and violently throws an eraser down on her desk. The eraser bounces off the desk and strikes Dr. Smith in the eye. As a result, she experiences severe pain in her eye for several days and has a bruise.

Dr. Smith would now like to sue Warren for the tort of battery in Florida. Does she have a valid claim?

Battery Research

You conduct legal research and find the following:

Battery is defined in Florida as “an unlawful touching or striking or the use of force against the person of another with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or apprehension thereof.” McDonald v. Ford, 223 So. 2d 553, 555 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969). The elements of battery can be broken down as follows: (1)(a) touching, or (1)(b) striking, or (1)(c) use of force; (2) against the person of another; (3) with intent to bring about; (4)(a)(1) harmful, or (4)(a)(2) offensive contact, or (4)(b) the apprehension thereof.

The Supreme Court of Florida described the requisite intent as either “a hostile intent, or a desire to do harm,” Spivey v. Battaglia, 258 So. 2d 815, 816-817 (Fla. 1972). The court added that “[w]here a reasonable [person] would believe that a particular result was substantially certain to follow,” intent could be implied. Id. at 817. In Spivey, the court found that the defendant, who tried to touch the plaintiff, would not reasonably believe that his actions would cause partial paralysis to the plaintiff. Id.

By contrast, while the Second District Court of Appeal in McDonald did not specifically define the requisite intent for battery (beyond the battery definition), it added that the absence of consent to a contact was a defining characteristic. 223 So. 2d at 555. In McDonald, the defendant demonstrated hostile intent to harmfully or offensively contact the victim while the victim struggled to get away.

In both cases, intent was used to distinguish intentional torts such as battery from the unintentional tort of negligence. McDonald, 223 So. 2d 553; Spivey, 258 So. 2d 815. The court applied a lower standard for (unintentional) torts in negligence by providing that a defendant may be liable for “reasonably foreseeable” consequences. Spivey, 258 So. 2d at 817.

2