Jim和Sarah两人是同事，最近在工作时两人发生过争执。一天Jim在公园和他的儿子玩球，看到了Sarah在不远处的餐厅吃饭。为了报复Sarah，Jim吉姆故意把球扔向Sarah。没想到，球没打中Sarah，反而击中了旁边一位老人Baker的头部，导致Baker摔倒并摔断了手腕。Baker以殴击罪（battery）为由起诉Jim。

请问，针对老人Baker的故意伤害（殴击罪），Jim是否应当承担责任？

Issue:

The primary issue is whether Jim can be held liable for battery against Mr. Baker under the doctrine of transferred intent. Specifically, the question is whether Jim’s intent to cause harmful or offensive contact with Sarah can be transferred to Mr. Baker, even though Jim did not intend to strike him.

Rule of Law:

Battery occurs when a defendant intentionally causes harmful or offensive contact with another person. The required elements of battery, as clarified in McElhaney v. Thomas, are: (1) an intentional act, (2) that results in harmful or offensive contact, (3) that is unprivileged. Furthermore, the doctrine of transferred intent allows the defendant’s intent to harm one person to be transferred if another person is unintentionally harmed. Under Garratt v. Dailey, intent in battery can be established if the defendant knows with substantial certainty that contact will occur, even if they do not specifically desire to cause harm.

Application (Analysis):

In this case, Jim intended to throw the ball at Sarah to scare her, which suggests that he intended to create an offensive or harmful contact or at least the apprehension of such contact. Even though Sarah ducked, Jim’s intent to cause offensive contact to her can be transferred to Mr. Baker under the doctrine of transferred intent. The fact that the contact was unintentional does not absolve Jim of liability. The ball hitting Mr. Baker in the head, causing him to fall and break his wrist, constitutes harmful contact, satisfying the second element of battery.

Jim’s intent to contact Sarah, coupled with the harmful contact to Mr. Baker, meets the requirements for transferred intent. Jim’s intent to throw the ball at Sarah, knowing it could result in contact, aligns with the standard of substantial certainty outlined in Garratt v. Dailey. Since Mr. Baker was directly harmed by Jim’s actions, Jim’s liability for battery can be established through transferred intent.

Counterarguments:

Jim may argue that he did not intend to harm Mr. Baker, and therefore cannot be held liable for battery. However, under the doctrine of transferred intent, it is irrelevant whether Jim specifically intended to strike Mr. Baker; his intent to harm or scare Sarah is sufficient to hold him liable for the unintended contact with Mr. Baker. Additionally, Jim might argue that his actions were not substantially certain to result in contact with anyone other than Sarah. However, the fact that Jim threw a ball in a public space where other people were present weakens this defense, as the likelihood of hitting someone other than Sarah was foreseeable.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, Jim can be held liable for battery against Mr. Baker under the doctrine of transferred intent. Jim’s intent to cause offensive contact with Sarah is transferred to Mr. Baker when the ball hit him instead. The harmful contact, coupled with Jim’s intent to cause harm or fear, satisfies the legal requirements for battery. Any defense that Jim did not intend to hit Mr. Baker would fail due to the application of transferred intent, making Jim liable for Mr. Baker’s injuries.