Section 1: Battery

Prima Facie Battery Act

Actor performs a voluntary physical act

Prima Facie Battery Intent

Actor acts with deliberate conduct intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff

Prima Facie Battery Contact

Harmful or offensive contact directly or indirectly results

Standard of Proof in Torts

Plaintiff must establish liability by a preponderance of the evidence

Volition Rule

The physical movement must be voluntary and involve deliberate conduct

Involuntary Self-Preservation Reflex

Actions taken purely out of the instinct of immediate self-preservation under mortal peril lack the required volition for intentional tort liability

Laidlaw v. Sage

Defendant instinctively moved behind a clerk into a blast path but was held not liable because involuntary reflexive self-preservation cannot support battery

Single Intent

Plaintiff must show that Defendant intended the touching or contact but no intent to harm is needed

Dual Intent

Defendant intended both to touch and to harm

Vosburg v. Putney

A student kicked a classmate's shin during class and was held liable for all direct resulting harm because the kick was unlawful in the classroom setting

Eggshell Skull Rule

The wrongdoer is liable for all injuries resulting directly from the wrongful act whether they could or could not have been foreseen by him

Mental Incapacity & Battery

Allowance for insanity is not a measure upon intent so a mental illness diagnosis does not negate the intent to act

Polmatier v. Russ

Defendant shot his father-in-law during an acute psychotic episode but was held liable in civil battery because his actions showed what he intended to do despite hallucinations

Person-to-Person Transferred Intent

If someone intends to commit assault on someone but hurts someone else they are liable for battery for their injuries

Manning v. Grimsley

Pitcher threw a baseball to threaten hecklers but it hit a different bystander and he was held liable for battery

Transferred Transferred Intent (Horseplay)

Intent to cause harm is not required for battery and intending to throw objects in a crowded room is sufficient

Keel v. Hainline

Students throwing chalkboard erasers hit an innocent girl and participating students were held liable for battery

Sports Exception

A person active in a sport only breaches a duty of care if they injure another player outside of the normal activities of the sport

Knight v. Jewett

Defendant stepped on plaintiff's finger during a touch football game but court found no intent to injure because it was within normal sports activities

Harmful Contact

Contact resulting in physical impairment pain or bodily damage

Offensive Contact

Contact that violates one's personal dignity

Objective/Subjective Test for Offensive Contact

The contact must be highly offensive to the person specifically and the defendant must know that

Leichtman v. WLW Jacor

Radio hosts intentionally blew smoke into an anti-smoking advocate's face and were held liable because smoke makes contact and offended his personal dignity

Madden v. D.C. Transit

Pedestrian sued bus company over intentional emissions but was denied because there was an absence of malice willfulness or wrongful intent

Extended Personality Rule

To constitute battery it is not necessary to physically touch the body as knocking anything from someone's hand or touching their clothing in a rude manner is sufficient

Morgan v. Loyacomo

Store owner followed plaintiff and seized a package from her hand and was held liable for battery

Medical Battery Rule

The tort of battery is limited in a medical setting to circumstances where a procedure is performed without consent

Implied Medical Consent

The law implies the consent of an unconscious patient when action is necessary to save their life

Werth v. Taylor

A doctor administered a blood transfusion to an unconscious Jehovah's Witness to save her life and was not held liable for battery

Non-Emergency Medical Rule

If it is not an emergency and the patient is unconscious the doctor requires the patient's explicit consent for an operation

Moher v. Williams

Doctor put patient under for right ear surgery but operated on the left ear instead and was held liable for battery because it was not a medical emergency

Idiosyncratic Objections

A person has a right to refuse treatment even if they will likely die and doctors cannot violate known religious or personal boundaries

Cohen v. Smith

Patient's religion forbade unclothed contact by males but a male nurse touched her during a C-section so the court ruled she did not consent

Objective Norms (Irrational Fears)

Offensive battery requires actual physical offense and not just unfounded mental anguish

Brzoska v. Olson

Patients sued estate of retired dentist with AIDS for battery but court found no offensive contact because plaintiffs failed to show actual exposure to AIDS