A. INTENTIONAL TORTS
1. Elements of Battery
Battery
Overview and Definition
Battery occurs when the defendant’s acts intentionally cause harmful or offensive contact with the victim’s person. [See Restatement §§ 13, 16, 18.] Accidental contact, by contrast, must be analyzed under negligence or strict liability.
Restatement §18: A battery consists of the infliction of a harmful or offensive contact upon another with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent. . .the tort of battery exists to protect the integrity of the person. Prosser: “by even an entirely harmless, but offensive contact entitles the plaintiff to vindication of the legal right by an award of nominal damages.” – quoted in Paul v. Holbrook
Prima facie case of battery – elements:
1. A acts
2. Intending to cause a contact with P of a type that is harmful or offensive; and
3. A’s act causes such a contact.
a. Contact element: direct, flesh on flesh contact not necessary to satisfy this element. Bullets or a “sicked” dog suffice.
b. Extended personality: Fischer v. Corrousel Motor Hotel: plate snatched by employee who refused to serve African-American held liable for battery.
Vanilla Battery Cases:
Cecarelli v. Maher (CT 1943)
Dude at a dance sweeps the ladies off their feet to the dismay of Maher, Heinz & unknown who deliver a severe beat down of the well-groomed, well-spoken young lad. Default J against Maher for failure to appear of 315 for medical and 2K for pain, suffering and permanent damage.
Paul v. Holbrook (FL 1997)
Co-worker massaged a lady without permission after she expressly asked him not to do so. Summary J granted to Paul and employer except as to battery: Once a contact has been established, its character becomes the focus. “A stranger is not to be expected to tolerate liberties which would be allowed by an intimate friend. But unless the D has special reason to believe that more or less will be permitted by the individual P, the test is what would be offensive to an ordinary person not unduly sensitive to personal dignity….Offensiveness is an essential element of the tort. Ct. holds that offensiveness is a matter for jury to decide. Proof of intent to commit battery is rarely subject to direct proof, but must be established based on surrounding circumstances. No evidence of an intention to do harm is necessary.
Intent Requirement
§ 8 of Rest. 2nd: The word “intent” is used . . . to denote that the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.
The purpose of the intent requirement is to confine intentional tort liability to cases in which the D acts with a higher level of culpability than mere carelessness.
While battery requires intent, the prevailing tort definition does not require an intent to harm. It is only necessary that the defendant intend to cause either harmful or offensive contact. [See, e.g., Vosburg v. Putney, 50 N.W. 403 (Wis. 1891).] The transferred intent doctrine is applicable to battery. [See § 1.01 [B], supra.]
Nelson v. Carroll
Claim of accident provides no defense to a battery claim where the evidence is undisputed that Nelson was shot by Carroll as Carroll threatened and struck him on the side of his head with the handgun. Carroll shot Nelson in the stomach in the midst of an altercation concerning a debt. Carroll was hitting and threatening Nelson with the handgun when it accidentally went off.
“A battery occurs when one intends a harmful or offensive contact with another without that person’s consent. A battery may occur through a defendant’s direct or indirect contact with the plaintiff. . . it is enough that the D sets a force in motion which ultimately produces the result” – prosser
The intent required is not a specific intent to cause the type of harm that occurred. The intent element of battery requires not a specific desire to bring about a certain result, but rather a general intent to unlawfully invade another’s ph
.” Illustration: When one points a gun and shoots, pulling the trigger is the act and not the results of the bullet. (as long as it was voluntary and not spastic) However, a hunter may act to pull the trigger to shoot a bird, but accidentally shoot a person and thus intended the act but not the consequence. It is the consequential contact with the other person that the actor must either intend or be substantially certain would result, not the act – pulling the trigger- itself. On the other hand, the actor is liable for an intentional tort if he pulled the trigger intending that the bullet released thereby would strike someone, or knowing that it was substantially likely to strike someone as a result of his act.
An actor need not appreciate that his act is harmful or offensive in order for his contact to constitute a battery.
The linchpin of liability for battery is not a guilty mind, but rather an intent to make a contact the law forbids. Because harmful or offensive contact is determined objectively by the law, only those deliberate contacts that meet the legal test for harmful or offensive will constitute batteries.
The tort of battery seeks to strike a balance between preserving the bodily integrity of others and recognizing and accommodating the realities of our physical world.
– Minority of jurisdictions reject the Wagner (black letter) holding and state that an insane person must be able to appreciate their actions to be liable for battery. However, the general rule for claims against minors is subjective, whether that particular child was capable of forming the requisite intent and acted with such intent.
