Battery

Question 1

Elements of Battery

Answer 1

(a) He acts intending to cause harmful or offensive contact, or immediate apprehension of such a contact.
(i) Intent = desire or knowledge with substantial certainity.
(ii) Contact = Can be indirect.
(b) a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other directly results.

Question 2

Vosberg v. Putney

Answer 2

Facts: Vosburg kicked Putney in schoolroom. Putney’s knee became infected, lost use of limb.

Holdings:

• Defendant can be held liable unless jury has expressed finding that defendant didn’t intend to harm the plaintiff.
• All damages caused by the defendant are recoverable, even if not forseeable.

Question 3

Garratt v. Daily

Answer 3

Facts: Plaintiff was a woman with arthritis. Defendant is a five year old. Defendant moved chair while Plaintiff sitting down. Defendant claims he was helping her sit down, plaintiff alleges he moved it away. Plaintiff had medical bills.

Holdings:

• Intent = defendant must have knowledge with
  substantial certainty that actions will injure plaintiff.
• Age is not relevant in tort. Age is relevant in determining defendant’s knowledge of injury.

Notes:

• Knowledge-based intent is sufficient, but not necessary. Subjective intent to harm the victim is also sufficient.

Question 4

Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel

Answer 4

Facts: Plaintiff was african-american. Defendant restaurant manager snatched plate from his hand, said “people of your kind can’t eat here.”

Holdings:

• Contact includes objects attached to person.
• Offense is an objective standard.
• Damages can be recovered for emotional harm.

Question 5

Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications

Answer 5

Facts: Leichtman was a known anti-smoking advocate. While on a talk show, defendants blew smoke in his face.

Holdings:

• Blowing smoke is an offensive contact; particles make contact, has effect of harming dignity.
• Defendant can be liable for battery if incites another to commit battery.
• Employer can be vicariously liable for intentional torts in the scope of employement.

Question 6

O’Brien v. Cunard Steamship Co.

Answer 6

Facts: O’Brien insisted she already received vaccine.
O’Brien did not say that she didn’t want to be vaccinated. Doctors gave vaccine. O’Brien got blistered, and sued for Battery.

Holdings:
- Consent is a defense of battery.

Question 7

Bang v. Charles T. Miller Hospital

Answer 7

Facts: Plaintiff needed a prostate operation. Doctor did not explain that operation would result in cutting spermatic cords.

Holdings:
- Doctor has obligation to discuss operation and alternatives prior to performing operation. Otherwise, consent is not given.

Question 8

Kennedy v. Parrott

Answer 8

Facts: Doctor was performing appendix operation. While operating, discovered ovarian cysts, which surgeon punctured. Plaintiff developed phlebitis. Patient sued for negligence.

Holdings:
- For general operations, persons consent is considered general. Surgeon is not negligent in performing operations not explicitly consented to under anesthesia.

Question 9

Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals

Answer 9

Facts: Defendant intentionally struck plaintiff in frustration with elbow at end of play. District court held that defendant lacked specific intent needed for battery. Appellate court reversed; players aren’t allowed to intentionally injury players (as this is reckless).

Holdings:
- Not “fair play”, thus reckless conduct which can be the basis for liability.