Intent

by Andrew J. Petersen

In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case involving the use of a canine to subdue a suspect, the Court discussed whether the intentional release of the canine was an intentional tort (battery) or was a consequence of a negligent act, i.e., a misperception of fact. The distinction was important because the court held the justification statutes for use of force by a law enforcement officer do not apply to a negligence claim but only to an intentional tort case such as battery. McDonald v. Napier (Division II, Arizona Court of Appeals, October 18, 2017). This decision raises a question of what exactly is an intentional tort and how is it different from negligence. 

For the complete article, contact Humphrey & Petersen, P.C. at rdesk@humphreyandpetersen.com, or call (520) 795-1900.