Ranson v. Kitner 1. Case Name: Ranson (D) v. Kitner (P) (p. 24) 2. Court & Date: Appellate Court of Illinois, 1889 3. Procedural History: (p. 24) At trial, the jury found Ranson, the defendant, liable and awarded Kitner, the plaintiff, damages in the amount of $50. The Ranson appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois. 4. Questions Presented: (p. 24) Whether a good-faith mistake can negate the requisite intent element for an intentional tort. 5. Trigger Facts: (p. 24) Ranson, the defendant, and another hunter were hunting for wolves. Ranson mistook a dog, which was owned by Kitner, the plaintiff, for a wolf and killed it. The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover the dog’s value. 6. Plaintiff’s Argument: (p. 24) The plaintiff argued that the defendant intended to kill the plaintiff’s dog and that the defendant’s good-faith mistake does not negate his intent to do so. 7. Defendant’s Argument: (p. 24) The defendant argued that he was hunting for wolves, but he mistakenly, and acting in good-faith, killed the plaintiff’s dog because the dog resembled a wolf. 8. Rule: (p. 24) The defendant’s mistake does not negate intent, even if the defendant is acting in good faith. 9. Reasoning: (p. 24) Ranson intended to kill Kitner’s dog. Although Ranson honestly believed that Kitner’s dog was a wolf, a good-faith mistake does not negate intent. 10. Holding: (p. 24) A good-faith mistake does not negate the requisite intent element for an intentional tort. 11. Main Takeaway: Mistake does not negate intent, even if the mistake was done in good faith. 12. Other Notes: (p. 24, Note 1) Mistake is distinguishable from an accident. An intentional act can be based on a mistake. However, an accident is necessarily based on unintentional conduct.