Talmage v. Smith 1. Case Name: Talmage (P) v. Smith (D) (p. 28) 2. Court & Date: Supreme Court of Michigan, 1894 3. Procedural History: (p. 28) The jury at the trial court returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Talmage. The defendant, Smith, appealed the jury verdict to the Supreme Court of Michigan. 4. Questions Presented: (p. 28) Can a defendant have the requisite intent to commit a battery against the plaintiff even if the defendant did not specifically intend to commit a battery against that person? 5. Trigger Facts: (p. 28) The defendant, Smith, came upon several boys playing on the roofs of his sheds. He “ordered” the two boys he could see to come down then threw a stick at one of them. The stick missed its intended target and hit the plaintiff, Talmage, “just above the eye,” causing him to lose sight in that eye. 6. Plaintiff’s Argument: (p. 28) The plaintiff seemed to argue that the requisite intent necessary for his battery claim can be established by the defendant’s intent to commit a battery against another boy. 7. Defendant’s Argument: (p. 28) The defendant seemed to argue that he did not have the requisite intent to commit a battery against the plaintiff because he actually intended to hit another boy. 8. Rule: (p. 28) The doctrine of transferred intent permits intent to be transferred from Person A to Person B. In other words, the intent to commit a tort upon Person A is pieced together with the resulting injury to Person B. A defendant is liable when he intends to commit a tort against Person A and in fact accomplishes it against Person B. 9. Reasoning: (p. 28) The defendant, Smith, intentionally threw the stick in order to hit another person (Byron Smith). In other words, Smith had the intent to commit a battery against Byron Smith. Accordingly, even though the defendant intended to hit Byron Smith, but instead struck and injured the plaintiff, the defendant is still liable for damages to the plaintiff because of his intention to use unreasonable force against another person (Byron Smith) is transferred to established the requisite intent for the plaintiff’s battery claim against him. 10. Holding: (p. 29) Under the doctrine of transferred intent, a defendant can have the requisite intent to commit a battery against the plaintiff even if the defendant did not specifically intend to commit a battery against that person. 11. Main Takeaway: (pp. 28-29) Even if the defendant did not have the requisite intent to commit an intentional tort against Person B, the defendant is liable when he intends to commit a tort against Person A and in fact accomplishes it against Person B. 12. Other Notes: (p. 30, Note 2) The transferred intent doctrine is applicable to battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels.