Ranson
v. Kitner
Appellate
Court of
31
Ill.App. 241.
Prosser,
p. 23-24
Facts: The plaintiff sued the
defendant for killing a dog. The
defendants claimed they thought they were shooting a wolf. The trial court found for the plaintiff, and
the defendants appealed.
Issue: Are the defendants liable
for trespass to chattels if they intended to harm a fox and not a dog?
Rule:
A person is
liable for damages caused by a mistake, even if it is made in good faith.
Analysis: We don’t allow mistake as
an excuse because we fear that defendants will claim it fraudulently to get out
of any liability.
Conclusion: The appellate court upheld
the trial court’s verdict.
Notes
and Questions
1. I think the court
seeks to distinguish between a mistake as an act where intent “misfired” and an
accident as something where an act took place despite there being no intention
of acting whatsoever.
2. I guess we
find the fuel oil distributor liable because as a matter of policy we want the
distributor to be careful when it fills up fuel tanks.
3. Mistake does
not seem to vitiate intent. Any reasonable
person who shoots at an animal must intend to kill it. By analogy to Ranson, the surgeon who
operates on the wrong patient must be liable for battery even though their
intent would have been appropriate if directed at the correct patient. What about when someone mistakenly does the
right thing when they were intending to do wrong? As a matter of policy, I don’t think this
should be an excuse. This seems to apply
in particular when the defendant takes the plaintiff’s property.
4. Mistakes as to
the existence of a privilege are distinguished from mistakes as to fact.
5. Maybe I will!