Battery

To establish a claim for battery, the plaintiff must prove four essential elements:
- Intent: The defendant intended to cause contact.
- Non-consensual: The contact was non-consensual.
- Harmful or Offensive: The contact was harmful or offensive.
- Contact: There was actual contact with the plaintiff.

The plaintiff must prove all four battery elements by a preponderance of the evidence (greater than 50% threshold).
If the plaintiff fails to prove even one element, the defendant wins the lawsuit.

The defendant does not need to prove anything but can win by poking a hole in any one of the four elements.
The threshold for the defendant's success is considerably lower than that of the plaintiff.

Intent can be understood simply as the defendant's want for contact, rather than intending harm.
In legal terms, issues of liability focus on whether the defendant desired contact rather than the outcome of the contact.

Situation: D (defendant) high-fives P (plaintiff) resulting in P's hand breaking.
- Intent: D intended to cause contact (his excitement led to reaching out for the high five).
- Harmful or Offensive: P's broken hand represents harmful contact.
- Consensual: P consented to the high five, therefore this would not constitute battery.
Conclusion: P would not win a battery claim due to consent.

Scenario: D comforts a stranger (P) who lost a helium balloon by patting P's shoulder.
- Intent: D intended to make contact.
- Harmful or Offensive: No substantial harm indicated, thus requires evaluation of offensiveness.
- Non-Consensual: Touching a stranger likely constitutes non-consensual contact.
Conclusion: Offensive contact could be argued, but the benign nature of the action (shoulder pat) would likely defeat the claim.

Situation: D loses balance on a subway train and collides into P, causing a broken arm.
- Harmful: Broken arm directly linked to the incident.
- Non-Consensual: Definitely non-consensual contact.
- Contact: Clearly present.
- Intent: D did not intentionally bump into P; hence, this case could lean towards negligence rather than battery.

Situation: D places a hand on P's inner thigh at the bar.
- Intent: Clearly intentional as D placed the hand.
- Offensive: This is offensive contact, especially as P ignored the advances.
- Conclusively Non-Consensual: Massive basis for P's successful battery claim.

Contact can be defined as direct or indirect: Indirect contact includes using an object or action that results in contact.
Common examples include throwing something that hits someone or pushing an object that ultimately touches another individual.
Rube Goldberg Machines: Represent the concept of complex indirect causal pathways leading to contact—defendants cannot evade liability through indirect contact.

Offensive contact is assessed on whether a reasonable person would deem the contact offensive rather than the subjective feelings of the plaintiff.
Courts determine whether the contact is offensive based on societal norms rather than individualized reactions.
If a defendant utilizes knowledge of a plaintiff's unique sensibilities to cause contact, this can also be classified as offensive, even when a reasonable person may not find it offensive.

General Offensive Touching: If D is aware that a certain act (e.g., touching with a specific intention) would offend P, then that constitutes offensive contact.
Harming with Contextual Knowledge: D throws a snowball intending to hit P, knowing it may result in a harmful situation, leading to liability regardless of D's intent regarding harm.

It is not necessary for the defendant to intend the harm; they must only intend the contact.
Even if the harm resulting from contact is substantial, the defendants may be liable solely for the contact itself.

Jury's Role: Determining offensiveness often relies on juries. Juries assess whether contact is offensive based on community standards.