. Although the intentional torts
The possibility that some intentional torts
may not have a geographic focal point raises a larger question: why should the defendant's geographic focus matter at all?
e (noting the "paucity" of legal opinions discussing proximate cause in intentional tort
Moreover, Canadian courts have been extremely reluctant to create new intentional torts
. (86) The surrogate could, however, also bring a claim in negligence and might be more successful in arguing that the intending parents committed an unintentional indirect tort.
Andrich, (20) held that although the state's Comparative Negligence Act extends beyond ordinary negligence actions to include intentional torts
, it does not apply to allow comparative fault apportionment of punitive damages for any type of act.
Despite the possibility of an intentional tort
exception to the LHWCA, there are several arguments why this potential exception should not exist.
Sixth, some states provide for a privilege of unlawful conduct to bar recovery for an intentional tort
. (47) At first blush, this defense might be attractive to a user of annoyancetech devices who is sued in tort by plaintiffs who own barking dogs, who are bad drivers of automobiles, and who are other technical law breakers.
The FTCA grants federal district courts jurisdiction over claims arising from certain torts committed by federal employees in the scope of their employment, and waives the government's sovereign immunity from such claims.' (331) Two important exceptions to jurisdiction and the waiver of sovereign immunity are relevant here: the discretionary function exception and the intentional tort
Although the majority's opinion can be criticized for its crabbed interpretation of the statutory exceptions for the employment relationship and conditions,3 ultimately it would have been difficult to prove that the district's actions in this case constituted an intentional tort
. In other states that have governmental immunity or at least an exclusive reliance on workers' compensation, most courts have been stingy about liability for injuries to staff members caused by students with disabilities.
Question Two asked whether under Alaska law the policyholder could obtain coverage even when another insured committed an intentional tort
in cases when the innocent policyholders were accused of mere negligence by the third party victim.
"It would be irrational to allow a party who negligently fails to provide reasonable security measures to reduce its liability because there is an intervening tort, when the intervening intentional tort
is exactly what the security measures are supposed to protect against," the court ruled.
To compensate a victim for suffering an intentional tort
, various damages are recoverable.