TORTS I OUTLINE
I. Battery
a. Burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the elements of their case
b. Harmful Battery
i. Restatement 13: An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
1. he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
2. a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results
ii. Intent
1. An actor does not have to intend the consequences of his actions to happen but must have the intent to commit the unlawful act/harmful contact—Vosburg v. Putney
2. If an actor commits an act which he knows with substantial certainty will result in harmful contact then intent for purposes of establishing a battery claim is present
3. If a person intentionally tries to commit a battery against one person but misses and strikes a third person, then this is the doctrine of transferred intent which gives rise to a claim for that third party to file against the person
iii. Harmful contact
1. Harm is defined detrimental change or impairment or loss to the condition of a person’s body
2. Even removal of a wart by a doctor constitutes battery because physical harm has occurred but because the doctor had the privilege of consent this claim is not actionable
3. Examples:
a. Kicking someone
b. Administering a vaccination without their consent
c. Punching someone
d. Pulling a chair out from someone (contact is between ground and person)
c. Offensive Battery
i. Restatement 18: An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
1. He acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
2. an offensive contact with the person of the other directly results
ii. Intent
1. An actor does not have to intend to offend the victim, rather the standard is that a reasonable person would find that the intended contact was offensive (objective test)
iii. Offensive contact:
1. restatement 19 says that a bodily contact is offe
y action) however if a doctor is doing an operation for which they had permission from the patient and goes in and does something else that is not specifically laid out to the patient before the surgery then this is not covered by the privilege of consent
4. Minors/consent/sex: old law said that a minor could consent to sex if they understood the nature of the act at the time—today this is more of a bright line rule—minors cannot give consent to sexual relations no matter what their subjective mental state is
Consent in an area/profession wherein rough conduct is imminent: Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals—team/players can be held accountable for battery for conduct that would be found unreasonable by the standards of the rules of the game-consent to a rough sport is not consent to all roughness that occurs during a game if the battery would be
