Res Ipsa Loquitor is a type of evidence. It is not a theory of recovery, a doctrine, a rule of law, or a test. It is a type of evidence. But I thought it was—-no; I suppose it shifts the standard presumption to be applied, not a presumption in itself. It is offered. It is a type of circumstancial evidence. “A res ipsa loquitur case is ordinarily merely one kind of case of circumstancial evidence, in which the jury may reasonably infer both negligence and causation from te mere occurrence of the event and the defendant’s relation to it.” Restatement Section 328D cmt. b. The phrase RES IPSA LOQUITUR entered law in response durinf oral argument in 1863 in England in the classic flour barrel on te head case (in Byrne v. Boadle. "[T]he phrase has no more importance or virtue than its English equivalent." Restatement § 328D cmt. a. "It adds nothing to the law, has no meaning which is not more clearly expressed for us in English, and brings confusion to our legal discussions." Potomac Edison Co. v. Johnson, 160 Md. 33, 152 A. 633 (1930) (dissent), quoted in Prosser & Keeton § 39, at 244 n. 20. CALI lessons, “Speaks 6 of 6.”

f. The jury is allowed to infer from the very event both breach of defendant's duty and causation.

Assault requires (both): Defendant intends to cause the plaintiff to anticipate imminent, harmful contact to their person AND (2) Defendant's conduct caused them to anticipate such contact. (Defendant's ACTIONS caused them to think so.)

**What's intent?

Intent REQUIRES either: * Purpose (Desire) i.e. they wanted to make the defendant think that they were at risk of imminent harm to their physical person OR * Knowledge **(Substantial Certainty) i.e. they knew with substantial certainty that the defendant was going to think that.

So...

• Delaney says she is going to [redacted] and physically moves close to A's person with her arm raised while screaming.
• A ran from her, believing that D intended to harm her & that she was at imminent risk of D physically attacking her.
• A starts crying and tells D not to touch her. D says that she is not going to touch her, then chases her down the hallway with her arm raised.
• D did not touch her. D claims that she was not going to touch her and therefore is not responsible for harm to A.

Is D liable for assault?

Test: * D intended to cause A to believe that she was going to attack her. * D raising her fist, making oral threats, and chasing after A caused A to anticipate this contact.

Is the intent requirement met? * Did D have purpose (desire) to cause A to anticipate imminent harm to her physical person as a result of D's actions? OR * * Did D have knowledge (substantial certainty) that A would genuinely believe such harmful or offensive contact with her person was imminent (Did D knew A would think that D is going to hurt her)?

Application D DID have knowledge (substantial certainty). (A said this aloud.) * D DID intend to cause A to believe she was going to get physically attacked (whether or not D desired to attack her is irrelevant; D desired [intended] A to believe that she would be).

---> Did D's affirmative conduct cause A to anticipate... contact? * D's affirmative conduct DID cause A to anticipate such contact.

SO: (1) Is met. (2) is met. --> D had knowledge. Intent requirement is met. Therefore: Yes, D is liable for assault.*

Note

"The intent to make contact is a requirement for battery, not assault."

(Ref: Third Restatemnt of Torts. Intentional Torts to Person [Squiggley 105].)