Ranson v Kitner 31 Ill App 241 (1888) is a good example - the defendant shot the

claimant's dog, thinking it was a wolf, but was found liable in trespass.

Simon Douglas

In message <51B0FD54A7A225489454D4BB1EE49D4E06FA74E0@MAIL3.kentlaw.edu> "Wright,

Richard" <Rwright@kentlaw.edu> writes:

> Not quite the answer to the question you pose, but an answer that moots your

question.

> I am traveling so I don't have access to my copy of the Restatement Second,

but I believe that it states the general position in US law that the mistaken

trespasser is liable despite the reasonableness or good faith of the mistake,

unless the mistake was intentionally or negligently induced by the plaintiff.

> ________________________________

> From: Tsachi Keren-Paz [mailto:t.kerenpaz@law.keele.ac.uk]

> Sent: Sun 6/14/2009 5:05 PM

> To: obligations@uwo.ca

> Subject: reasonable mistake and the reasonable person

> Dear colleagues,

> Can anyone refer me to discussion (in either case law or literature) of the

question whether reasonableness in the context of a reasonable mistake (for

example mistake about the claimant's consent to touching in battery) is to be

judged by the same or different considerations as reasonableness in the context

of standard of care in negligence?

> Any thoughts of whether the tests should be the same/similar/different?

> Best wishes

> Tsachi

> Dr. Tsachi Keren-Paz

> School of Law

> Keele University

> Staffordshire ST5 5BG

> England

> Office: CBC 2.015

> Phone: 01782 734358

> Email: t.kerenpaz@law.keele.ac.uk

> Book "Torts, Egalitarianism and Distributive Justice"

From:	Simon Douglas <simon.douglas@law.ox.ac.uk>
To:	Wright, Richard <Rwright@kentlaw.edu>
CC:	Tsachi Keren-Paz <t.kerenpaz@law.keele.ac.uk>
	obligations@uwo.ca
Date:	16/06/2009 22:13:23 UTC
Subject:	RE: reasonable mistake and the reasonable person