Battery Flashcards
Definition for battery
Defendant is liable for battery when the defendant voluntarily acts with the intent to cause harmful or offensive bodily contact with another, or apprehension of contact, directly or indirectly, to the plaintiff, and such contact results without justification or excuse.
Definition of voluntary
without outside influence; of one’s own free will
Definition of Acts
external manifestation of the actor’s will
What is intent?
Specific intent, general intent, transferred intent
What is specific intent?
purpose or desire to produce the consequences
What is general intent
if the defendant sets in motion a chain of events knowing with substantial certainty the outcome is likely to occur
Transferred intent
trying to commit a tort against one person, but accidentally committing it against another person
- Intent can transfer from object to person
o Example: committing battery by grabbing someone’s purse or cane - Intent can also transfer from tort to tort or person to person
Elements of Battery:
Voluntary: without outside influence; of one’s own free will
Acts: external manifestation of the actor’s will
Intent:
o Specific: purpose or desire to produce the consequences
o General: if the defendant sets in motion a chain of events knowing with substantial certainty the outcome is likely to occur
o Transferred: trying to commit a tort against one person, but accidentally committing it against another person
Harmful contact: contact that causes injury to another
Offensive: contact that a reasonable person would find objectionable
Direct contact: touching something so intimately connected with the person as to be regarded as part of that person
Indirect contact:
o Agent: something or someone who acts on behalf of the defendant
o Agency theory: using an implement or a person to commit a tort
Apprehension: anticipation or awareness/seizing of the mind
Imminent: immediate or close at hand
Agency theory
Agent: something or someone who acts on behalf of the defendant
Agency theory: using an implement or a person to commit a tort
what is harmful contact
contact that causes injury to another
what is offensive contact
contact that a reasonable person would find objectionable
Crowded-world theory
everyday touches such as taps on the shoulder are a result of living in a crowded world and are to be expected, and thus not constituted as battery. (Wallace v. Rosen)
Battery sub rules
- Touching element of a battery may be accomplished by touching something so intimately connected with someone that it is considered as apart of that person. Fisher v. Carrousel.
o Forceful dispossession is a harm to a person’s dignity, and it violates their bodily integrity
If something you dispossess is connected to another, it is part of your body. This is direct touching.
- Agency theory: using an implement or a person to commit a tort. Garratt v. Dailey.
- Plaintiff does not have to be aware of the contact
- Sleeping beauty rule: if you’re sleeping or unconscious, you are unable to consent to touching and this constitutes a battery. Mohr v. Williams
When battery does not apply
o Mere words do not constitute battery
o Conditional threats
o Future threats
What is the rule from Mohr v. Williams?
- Sleeping beauty rule: if you’re sleeping or unconscious, you are unable to consent to touching and this constitutes a battery.
Public policy for battery?
Public Policy: this tort protects people’s right to dignity and their bodily integrity
Tort Forms
Writ of trespass
writ of trespass on the case, or case
What is case?
indirect injury
what is significant about case?
basis for modern tort and contract law
What is a writ of trespass?
this is a direct, forcible injury
what is the term trespass “generaly”
used in a general sense in relation to doing something that huts or offends someone
types of liability
strict liability
absolute liability
definition strict liability
must be a causal relationship between defendant’s conduct an the plaintiff’s injury for defendant to be liable
definition of absolute liability
defendant automatically liable for any injuries caused by their products, regardless of negligence or lack thereof
What is intent
“Person acts with intent to produce a consequence if they: have purpose of producing that consequence, or act knowing that consequence is substantially certain to result.”
Intent is the voluntary desire to bring about a result in the belief that the result is substantially certain to occur
Takeaway from Garratt v Dailey
children 5 years and older—age does not negate intent, child is held liable for their tort like anyone else
single intent
the intent is to make contact you do not have the right to make
dual intent
defendant intended to touch
plaintiff proves that the touching intended to be harmful or offensive
Intent and mistakes
- Mistake does not negate intent
- Accident negates the act, but does not negate intent
-Mistakes do not negate the act, there still exists intent and liability
- Good faith mistakes do not negate the act.
Mental illness and intent
mental illness does not negate intent
o Mentally ill persons may be held responsible for their intentional torts, so long as plaintiff can prove that they formed the requisite intent
o Mentally ill people can have general intent
o Courts will not make exceptions for defendants on level of insanity
Public policy behind holding insane people liable for torts
An insane person, if financially able, must pay both for his support and pay for the damage which he does, and that an insane person with wealth should not have unimpaired enjoyment of his own comfort while his victim bears the burden. Courts are also reluctant to introduce the difficulties in determining mental capacity, such as is the case in criminal law.
voluntary intoxication and intent
Voluntary intoxication does not negate intent
Rule of innocent parties
where one of 2 innocent persons must suffer a loss, it should be borne by the one who occasioned it.
