Ranson v. Kitner
Nature of the Case
This case is an appeal from an award for damages for the killing of a dog.
Facts
Kitner (D) spotted Ranson’s (P) dog and mistakenly killed it because he thought it was a wolf. Ranson sued Kitner to recover the value of the dog. The trial court awarded Ranson $50 in damages and Kitner appealed, asserting that he was not liable because he acted in good faith and under the mistaken belief that Ranson’s dog was a wolf.
Issue
- Is an honest mistake a proper defense to an intentional tort?
Holding and Rule of Law
- No. Mistake is not a defense to an intentional tort.
Mistake, even in good faith, is not a defense to an intentional tort. Kitner intended to kill the animal. An honest and good faith belief that it was a wolf does not alleviate the liability for the consequences of this act.
Notes
Mistake is not a defense to an intentional tort. An actor’s belief concerning the nature of the result of his conduct is normally not relevant when an intentional tort is involved. A good faith mistake will not erase that intent.
If mistake were allowed to be a defense to intentional torts, it would be virtually impossible to find someone culpable for an intentional tort because everyone would plead mistake of fact.
There was no intent to kill the dog but there was an intent to shoot at an animal. This is an important distinction between criminal and civil liability for intentional acts. In criminal law, for a specific intent crime, there must be an intent to kill the dog and the mistake will be a defense if the mistake of fact negates the criminal mens rea. In civil law or torts, if you have the intent to commit the act you are held liable for the consequences regardless of any mistake.