How to write an answer to a 'fact pattern'-type question? - Example - Mika spots Bob whowhen they were both first-gradershad taken the obnoxious habit of pulling pranks on Mika several times per week. Mika had not seen Bob in almost 20 years but immediately recognized the childhood bully. Mika was overcome by the urge to take revenge for what Bob did, and threw leftovers of a Cherry Danish Mika had just started eating at Bob, hitting Bob right in the face. Is Mika liable to Bob for throwing the leftovers of the Cherry Danish at Bob under the rules of Canadian common law and Quebec civil law? CML The course of action most likely to succeed in establishing the liability of Mika for throwing the leftovers of the Danish at Bob is battery. Liability for battery requires an intentional action that directly interferes with another's bodily integrity, even in the absence of injury (Fridman, Wilson v Pringle). Mika deliberately threw the Danish at Bob. While no direct "touching" of Bob, due to the temporal and spatial proximity of Mika's throwing and Bob's being hit in the face, it is a physical contact that qualifies as "a touching of some sort" (Wilson v Pringle). Further, and even if not every unauthorized physical contact amounts to battery, Mika clearly sought revenge. Such hostile intentions are sufficient evidence for the hostility required to distinguish physical contact in ordinary life from tortious interferences (Wilson v Pringle). Mika is therefore liable to Bob for battery. CVL Mika could be liable to Bob for the same actions according to art. 1457 paras 1, 2 CCQ. Bob has suffered an actionable injury since being hit in the face with partially eaten food items in a public space is not only humiliating but also a probable source of disgust. That is, Bob suffered a moral injury (art. 1457 para 2 CCQ). Bob's, as every person's, right to personal integrity is protected against violations by arts. 3 para 1, 10 para 1 CCQ so that Mika, in throwing the Danish at Bob, violated the duty to respect others' legally enshrined interests to personal integrity contrary to law. This constitutes a fault for which Mika is responsible, even if Mika was "overcome with the urge to take revenge". As Mika only threw the Danish in the hope of disappearing unnoticed, Mika was fully able to tell right from wrong when throwing the pastry and so, was endowed with reason (art. 1457 para 2 CCQ). Finally, as Mika's fault also caused Bob's injury, Mika is liable to Bob for hitting Bob with the leftover Danish.