Battery Flashcards

1
Q

Elements of Battery

A

(1) Intent
(2) Physical Harm or Offense
(3) Defendant lacked consent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

How is “intent” found?

A

Intent is inferred from the totality of the circumstances.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Hierarchy of Intent

A
  1. Intent/purpose is the harm or offense.
  2. Intent/purpose is the contact.
  3. Intent/purpose is an action that is substantially certain to cause harm or offense.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the intent necessary for battery?

A

Substantial certainty: harmful or offensive contact is a byproduct of the action (not the end or purpose at which the actor aims) the occurrence of which is not a matter of chance because it is substantially certain to occur [premised on knowledge]. It is not necessary for the actor to intend the contact’s harmfulness or offensiveness.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Policy Justification of Battery

A

Battery protects both physical integrity and personal dignity. Liability for harmful OR offensive contact. City of Watauga v. Gordon & Jones v. Fisher

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

How is consent determined for battery?

A

Consent is the actual (subjective) consent of the plaintiff, but it is assessed using objective criteria (based on the plaintiff’s external manifestations of intent). O’Brien v. Cunard Steamship

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Medical Consent Defense for Battery

A

In the absence of proof to the contrary the consent “will be construed as general in nature and the surgeon may extend the operation to remedy any abnormal or diseased condition in the area of the original incision whenever he, in the exercise of his sound professional judgment, determines the correct surgical procedure dictates and requires such an extension of the operation originally contemplated. Kennedy v. Parrott

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Conditional Medical Consent for Battery

A

Enables patients to exercise detailed control over surgical procedures. Ashcraft v. King.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Policy Considerations of Medical Consent

A
  1. The modern rule empowers “self-reliant surgeons,” but also disempowers patients
  2. Conditional consent, which enables patients to exercise detailed control over surgical procedures.
  3. Conditional consent matters because autonomy in the form of control over one’s own body matters
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Continuum of Consent

A
  1. Express- “I hereby consent”
  2. Tacit- inferred from conduct
  3. Implied- law assumes consent where it would be otherwise given.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Consent to Enterprise

A

Consent can be given through participation in an enterprise that encompasses harmful or offensive contact (such as sports or combat). Markley v. Whitman & McAdams v. Windham

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Consent to Illegal Acts Restatement 892(c)

A

Restatement 892(c)- Consent is effective to bar recovery although the conduct consented to is a crime unless the conduct is made criminal to protect a certain class of persons irrespective of their consent, and the consenting party is a member of the class. Toelis v. Moscatelli & Elkington v. Foust.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Wrongfully Procured Consent

A

Restatement 892B - Consent is effective unless the person consenting is induced to consent by a substantial mistake concerning the nature of the invasion of his interests or the extent of the harm to be expected from it and the mistake is known to the other or induced by the other’s misrepresentation. Kathleen K v. Robert B. & McPherson v. McPherson.
Consent cannot be procured by duress

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Self-Defense to Battery

A

An initial victim can use force proportional to the force of the original aggressor, sufficient to repel the attack. This will be assessed by how much force reasonably appeared necessary in light of all circumstances. Fragulia v. Sala.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Continuum of Subjectivity for Self-Defense

A
  1. Objective hindsight- viewed objectively in hindsight
  2. Objective reasonableness- viewed in light of all the circumstances (This is the standard)
  3. Variable objective- viewed with the specific attributes of the plaintiff and defendant
  4. Subjective- viewed based on what the defender subjectively believed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Refinements to Self-Defense Doctrine

A
  1. The apprehension must be created by the party against whom force is used
  2. Detached reflection cannot be demanded
  3. Psychological qualities o the victim are taken into account
  4. The law of self-defense is the same in civil and criminal law, except the standard of proof.
  5. The belief of the defender must be reasonable, not simply in good faith.
  6. An innocent victim of reasonable self-defense cannot recover for battery.
17
Q

Self-Defense using Deadly Force

A

Proportionality still applies, but now there is a higher bar for imminence and necessity to do use deadly force. Size and strength and disparity thereof are taken into account. Commonwealth v. Drum

18
Q

Majority Rule on Duty to Retreat when Using Deadly Force During Self-Defense

A

The victim must have had “no other possible, or at least probable, means of escaping” however, there is no duty to retreat when in your own home or place of business.

19
Q

Objective Standard of Reasonableness for Deadly Force in Self-Defense

A

Objective standard of reasonableness requires factfinder to view circumstances surrounding the accused at the time he used force from the standpoint of a hypothetical reasonable and prudent person (physical and psychological traits of accused are not taken into consideration). Hattori v. Peairs.

20
Q

Subjective Standard of Reasonableness for Deadly Force in Self-Defense

A

Subjective standard of reasonableness is whether the circumstances are sufficient to induce in the accused an honest and reasonable belief that he must use force to defend himself against imminent harm. State v. Leidholm.

21
Q

Aiding Others Defense to Battery

A

The intervenor gets the attacked party’s rights to self-defense, but without the benefit of a making a reasonable mistake concerning proportionality. People v. Young.

22
Q

Mechanical Devices Defense to Battery

A

One cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly. Katko v. Britney

23
Q

Right to Recapture Defense to Battery

A

Use of force to retake your property, but only if the taking (by force or fraud) was wrongful, without a claim of right. Kirby v. Foster

24
Q

Policy Considerations of Proportionality of Self-Defense

A
  1. Pros of objective include consistency but con is there may be something else going on that is ignored
  2. Pros of subjective include that it is specific to each situation, cons are may be difficult to attach reasonableness onto subjective traits, testa-lying, less consistency between courts, biases (racial, gender)