Battery Flashcards
1
Q
Battery - Definition
A
- an intentional infliction of a harmful or offensive contact w/ the plaintiff (Rst 2d Section 13)
2
Q
Battery - Intentionality
A
Act must be intentional:
- must be for the purpose of inflicting harmful or offensive contact
- OR realize that such harmful or offensive contact is substantially certain to result
3
Q
What do you need to intend?
A
- you definitely need intent w/ respect to contact w/ other person’s body, and you DON’T need intent as to the specific injuries suffered as a result of the core battery
- BUT some debate about whether you need intent as to the harmful or offensive quality of the contact - majority approach says you need to find some slice of a culpable state of mind for this aspect (reasonable person would suspect harmful/offensive) but some are strict liability on this
4
Q
Garratt v. Dailey - Facts
A
- Brian Dailey (5 yrs old) visiting Naomi Garratt
- sister Ruth Garratt goes to sit down in a spot where a chair had been that Brian pulled away to sit in himself -> Ruth breaks her hip
5
Q
Garratt v. Dailey - Holding
A
- court ultimately remands to determine whether Brian had sufficient knowledge that Ms. Garratt would be sitting down -> if he did, that constitutes intent
- on remand, lower court then found Brian did have the knowledge -> ruled for pl
6
Q
Garratt v. Dailey - Rule
A
Intent for battery can come from either:
- purpose (hard intent) OR
- knowledge to a substantial certainty (soft intent)
7
Q
Ellis v. D’Angelo - Facts
A
- Ellis pushed to ground by 4 yr old def -> said she suffered physical injuries as a result + sued the 4 yr old for battery
8
Q
Ellis v. D’Angelo - Rule
A
- a child can possess the intent necessary to establish an actionable tort claim
- focuses on the child’s mental capacity to intend the harmful action
- note that the court did not require the child understand the wrongfulness of the conduct - just needed to intend the physical contact (strict liability-esque conception of battery - you don’t need to intend the action be harmful or offensive, you just need to intend the action itself)
9
Q
Jones v. Fisher - Facts
A
- employers loaned employee money for an upper plate in her mouth
- employee got another job -> when she went to pick up last paycheck, employer requested she pay the $200 back in three days or would take the plate from her -> she refused, + employer used physical force to take plate out of mouth
- since no question of liability, case is largely about damages
10
Q
What remedies are available for battery?
A
- substantial jury discretion
- only set aside as excessive when there’s indication that it was result of passion, prejudice or corruption, or clear that jury disregarded evidence or rules of law
- compensatory damages + punitive damages
11
Q
Compensatory Damages
A
- compensate individual for whatever loss of well-being he or she has suffered as a result of the injury
Includes:
- medical costs
- lost wages
- pain and suffering (difficult to calculate)
12
Q
Punitive Damages
A
- not really about compensating the injured party, more concerned w/ punishment to wrongdoer/deterrent to others
- test: malice, “character of outrage frequently associated w/ crime”, “wanton, willful or reckless disregard of plaintiff’s rights”
13
Q
Jones v. Fisher - Holding
A
- jury gave $1000 for compensatory damages at trial -> appellate cuts down to $500
- jury gave $5000 for punitive -> appellate cuts down to $2000
- compensatory damages cover actual harm to pl, vs. punitive set up as punishment to defs so there is specific + general deterrence from act occurring again
14
Q
Jones v. Fisher - Rule
A
- In torts, damages may be nominal, compensatory, or punitive, + can also ask for injunction
- for punitive damages for battery, court needs to see some sort of wanton disregard for rights of another
15
Q
Battery and Consent
A
- consent is an affirmative defense to battery -> if you have consent, all the harm + offense of battery goes away
Complicating Factors:
- q of scope of consent
- manifestations of consent (objective controls over inward emotion)
- context matters
16
Q
Consent - Subjective vs. Objective
A
- consent has both subjective + objective elements
- subjective b/c focusing on whether pl really did consent, not just asking whether reasonable person would’ve agreed
- BUT both presence + content of actual consent determined objectively -> presence deals w/ external manifestation (how pl’s conduct appears to other reasonable persons) + content = blend of convention (what people normally know/think in entering into particular activity) + prescription (fairness - what kind of contact is legit given nature of the activity)
- content deals w/ what reasonable person would’ve understood self to have consented to in context at hand
17
Q
Mink v. University of Chicago - Facts
A
- defendants administered drug to pl’s w/o consent -> 20 yrs later, turns out drug could cause their children to be at increased risk for cancer
- defs brought three claims (battery, negligence for failure to warn, + strict liability claim against drug manufacturer) -> only the battery claim survives
18
Q
Mink v. University of Chicago - Rule
A
- lack of consent automatically means that the contact was offensive in nature (can qualify as battery even if no actual physical harm to pl’s)
19
Q
Mink v. University of Chicago - Holding
A
- court leaves scope of pl’s consent for jury to decide, but says battery claim can proceed
- non-emergency treatment w/o consent -> affirmative act intended to cause offensive contact (offensive b/c lack of consent, + doesn’t matter that pl’s took the pills themselves, it’s enough that defs set this in motion) + administration of drug was intentional -> battery
- proof of “technical invasion of integrity of person” - the medical treatment doesn’t actually need to be harmful, the lack of consent automatically makes it offensive
20
Q
Battery vs. Negligence in Medical Treatment
A
- battery when doctor performs non-emergency med treatment on patient w/o consent
- negligence when lack of informed consent (dr fails to properly inform patient of risk)
- court says battery if dr has consent to do one procedure but chooses to do another
21
Q
Cooper v. Lankenou Hospital - Facts and Procedural Posture
A
- 2012, PA Supreme Court
- Cooper brought medical battery suit - said subjected to C-section w/o consent
- jury instructions said 1) battery requires intent to cause harmful or offensive contact and 2) if surgery done w/o consent, it constitutes battery
- jury found in favor of drs
22
Q
Cooper v. Lankenou Hospital - Decision and Dissent
A
- appeals court upheld verdict - said jury instructions were correct statement of the law
- dissent argued correct, but confusing to the point of error -> should’ve just said the lack of consent part, harmful/offensive contact confuses jury
23
Q
O-Brien v. Cunard Steamship Co. - Facts
A
- ship passenger vaccinated while on board -> q of whether or not consent
- vax’s offered to passengers to help them satisfy Boston vax req-> she was assembled in line of passengers + communicated she’d been vax’d before but left no mark -> dr said she should be vax’d again + she held up arm (not physically forced to do so but did not verbally convey her desire to be vax’d) + ultimately took ticket of vax to use at quarantine
24
Q
O’Brien v. Cunard - Ruling
A
- court says she indicated by her conduct “desire to avail” self of provisions made for passengers’ benefit + nothing to indicate lack of consent -> ruling of directed verdict for def. in lower court was correct
- in determining whether pl consented, you look to over acts + manifestations of pl’s consent - if pl objectively manifests consent, unexpressed feelings to the contrary aren’t important
25
Q
Markley v. Whitman - Facts
A
- 1893
- Boys playing a “horse”/”rush” game
- the boy they pushed in the front suffered injuries (boy was not playing the game + did not expect the push)
- defs argued it was a game
26
Q
Markley v. Whitman - Holding
A
- court held pl was right - hadn’t shown any real or implied consent that he wanted to be part of the game -> unconsented contact-> BATTERY b/c no reasonable expectation of getting pushed
27
Q
Continuum of Consent
A
- express
- tacit (ex: join a game of touch football)
- “implied” by law - ex: if someone grabs another as they’re falling off a cliff (basically equiavlent to where danger of life or limb) -> assume they WOULD consent if they had the opportunity
28
Q
Medical Consent - Old Rule
A
- unless it’s a matter of life or death, any extra procedure without consent constitutes a battery
29
Q
Medical Consent - New Rule
A
- consent is general in nature, may extend to remedy abnormality/disease according to professional judgment
30
Q
Medical Consent - Present Rule
A
- informed consent
- try to get consent of a relative, + if no relative avail, most courts recognize dr’s privilege to extend surgery w/in area of initial incision, unless extension involves destruction of a bodily function
31
Q
Medical Consent Where Unconscious Patient Requiring Immediate Treatment
A
Dr has privilege to give treatment if:
- a reasonable person would consent to it
- there is no reason to believe that this particular patient would not consent to it
- delay would involve risk of serious harm
32
Q
Kennedy v. Parrott - Facts
A
- pl. suffered phlebitis resulting from deliberate + unauthorized puncture of cysts on her left ovary during performance of an authorized appendectomy
33
Q
Kennedy v. Parrott - Ruling
A
- court rules in favor of dr - says general consent to remedy any abnormal/diseased condition at site of incision whenever dr “in exercise of sound professional judgment” determines correct procedure dictates extension
- rule applies when patient can’t give consent @ time of decision + no one w/ authority to consent for patient is available
34
Q
Self-Defense as a Defense to Battery
A
- authorizes use of force to prevent an impending battery or stop one that is in progress
- defendant must reasonably believe that use of physical force is necessary to prevent an attack or imprisonment (objective standard: reasonable person in a similar situation)
- no right to go beyond what is necessary
