Cheny misidentifies quail...

[smtkr]

And battery is an intentional tort. Negligence, by the way, is not in and of itself a form of tort, it is a basis upon which liability for a tort can be established; that is to say someone may intentionally commit a tort or negligently do so.

I'm not going to drag this into a legal debate, since we both seem to know what we're talking about. It's pretty pointless for you to argue semantics, stating that negligence is not a tort after you say that battery is an intentional tort. Both are tortious and actionable.

[jesusLOL]

The thing that puzzles me is that they were quail hunting..... I thought his name was spelled Quayle ?!

"he is coming right at us................."

I saw another story of a guy a few days ago shooting his mates elbow, apparently his mate was well camoflauged and only his elbow was visible from behind a tree, so he mistook it for a squirrel.

[nichomach]

I'm not going to drag this into a legal debate, since we both seem to know what we're talking about. It's pretty pointless for you to argue semantics, stating that negligence is not a tort after you say that battery is an intentional tort. Both are tortious and actionable.

It's not semantics. Negligence is not a tort; it is a basis upon which tortious liability may be established. One may negligently damage or injure or intentionally damage or injure; the tort is the damage or injury. Intention or negligence may suffice to establish liability for that tort. In the first instance it is merely necessary to establish that the wrong, be it damage or injury, was caused intentionally. In the second, one must establish that a duty of care exists, that that duty was breached, and that damage or injury resulted from the breach.

[smtkr]

You're wrong. A tort is a wrong that causes an injury, not an injury. You can look it up. I just studied torts recently in uni. You aren't going to beat me on this one.

[windog]

Hmm watching this arguement develop makes me realise just how much we need saving from lawyers! So far they would have earnt £5000 just argueing what charge to bring!

[Pirate Pete]

after a bit of googling......i came up with this

seems there are already theories about this circulating. although that site seems slightly over the top, this article is certainly an interesting read.

believe what you want

pete

[nichomach]

You're wrong. A tort is a wrong that causes an injury, not an injury. You can look it up. I just studied torts recently in uni. You aren't going to beat me on this one.

A wrong which may be caused negligently or intentionally. At least as far as I was taught when I got my LLB. You're correct in that the damage or injury is a consequence of the wrongful act or ommission, however. My apologies; it's 15 years since I graduated. However, shall we agree that the action lies in torts, and that Mr. Cheney's state of mind would be a matter of fact for the court to determine?

There is one factor that speaks to it being negligence; if the site linked to above is correct, Cheney shot the lawyer from a distance of a mere 18 feet and Mr. Whittington lived. Sounds negligent to me...

[smtkr]

I was being sarcastic when I said it was battery (shooting a lawyer has to be intentional).

Anyhow, I'm still trying to figure out how to shoot someone while quail hunting. I've hunted game birds before--doves and pheasant. We always stand right next to each other. No one shoots over anyone else or in the general direction of a person. I suppose that if I understood how politicians make decisions, I'd probably be one.