1.      Battery
a.      Harmful Contact – 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
b.     Offensive Contact – 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 or indirectly results
c.      The Prima Facie Case – The element of intent to cause contact and harmful or offensive contact is the P’s prima facie case – to win P must prove intent, contact, and a causal connection
                   i.     Vosburg v. Putney – Boy intended foot to nee contact and there was no consent so he is liable – intent to cause harm not necessary, just intent to make contact. Eggshell skull rule – he caused the damage so he has to pay the full amount, even if it is not foreseeable. Intention has to be unlawful – teacher called class to order
                 ii.     Garratt v. Dailey – Did he know that his actions would cause her but to touch the ground – court said yes. Intent can either be purpose to cause harm or knowledge with substantial certainty that harm will occur
d.     Doctrine of Transferred intent – if you intend to shoot A but you shoot B instead it is still battery; or if you were just trying to scare him and the gun went off – still battery
e.     Harmful or offensive Contact – if you grab something closely associated with their body intending to cause harm or – still battery
                   i.     Cases
                 ii.     Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel – manager grabs plate of black man and says you can’t eat here – is grabbing the plate offensive contact – is a plate really a part of their person – court said yes and ruled for P
               iii.     Leichtman v WLW Jacor Comm – anti smoking guy at radio station gets smoke blown on him – offensive contact?
1.      Judge Prosser – we can’t build a glass cage around ourselves
f.       Consent – consent is a defense to batteryÂ
                   i.     Cases
                 ii.     O’Brien v. Cunard Steamship – waiting in line and putting her arm out for the injection = consent
               iii.     Barton v. Bee – 15 yr old girl said driver raped her and he said she consented – should consent be a defense when the girl is only 15 – court said consent is still a defense if the girl knows what she is doing, but court rules for P
                iv.     Hudson v. Craft – consenting boxers in an illegal prize fight. 18 year old gets hurt (age of consent 21) sues promoter for battery – court rules for p
                  v.     Bang v Charles T Miller Hospital – Dr cuts spermatic cord – holding is consent without all the information is not enough
                vi.     Hackbart v Cincinnati Bengals – Injury in game by another player not in the rules. In football you consent to violence – intended fouls happen all the time – you
ed to use reasonable force not intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, to defend himself against unprivileged harmful or offensive contact or other bodily harm which he reasonably believes that another is about to inflict intentionally on him (even if he could run away or just comply with attackers orders)
                 ii.     Self Defense by force threatening death or serious bodily harm
1.      Actor can defend himself with force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm when he reasonably believes that his life is in immediate danger or ravishment which can be prevented with use of force
2.      Privilege does not exist if he can safely avoid it by retreating if in any place other than his own dwelling, or by relinquishing the exercise of any right or privilege other than the privilege to prevent intrusion upon own dwelling or to effect a lawful arrest
               iii.     Character and extent of force permissible – the actor is not privileged to use any means of self-defense which is intended or likely to cause a bodily harm…in excess of that which the actor correctly or reasonably believes to be necessary for his protection
                iv.     The actor who uses excessive force in self defense is liable for only so much force as is excessive
