Definition of Battery

The first intentional tort we're going to discuss is battery. At its most basic level, battery is causing physical injury to a plaintiff.

Elements of Battery

Battery has, however, three specific elements: The first element is that the defendant acts intending to cause; second, a harmful or offensive conduct; third, with the plaintiff's person. That is, the defendant acts intending to cause; two, harmful or offensive contact; three, with the plaintiff's person.

Element 1: Intending to Cause

The first element, a defendant acts intending to cause, you'll notice are exactly the elements that we just spoke about when talking about intentional torts generally. That is, we already discussed what it means to act ( which means a volitional action); we already discussed what it means to have intent ( that is, actual or implied intent); and to cause (is that there is a causal relationship between the defendant's action and the harm to the plaintiff). At this point, we should know the first element and understanding of battery.

Element 2: Harmful or Offensive Contact

The second element of battery is that there is a harmful or offensive contact. Let's go into what harmful or offensive contact means.

Harmful Contact

Harmful contact is contact with a person that produces bodily harm. For instance, if you were to punch someone in the face, and it were to break their nose, that would be harmful conduct. Or, if you were to hit someone with a baseball bat and break their arm, again, we'd have harmful conduct.

Offensive Contact

On the MBE, very few questions deal with harmful batteries, because, typically, they're too easy. If you punch someone in the face, if you kick them in the shin, that's harmful conduct; and it's going to satisfy the elements of battery. Most questions, instead, are about offensive conduct, which is more ambiguous. You should think of offensive contact as unpermitted contact in order to determine whether or not a contact is offensive.

In other words, you should think about whether or not the contact violates a reasonable sense of personal dignity. There's a few things to note here.

Objective Test

First, it's an objective test. As we previously mentioned, even if an individual plaintiff is particularly sensitive, that doesn't make the contact against them offensive if an ordinary person would not be offended.

Context Matters

Second, context matters. There are some forms of touching or interaction that might be reasonable in one setting, but offensive in another. Again, you must ask yourself, would an ordinary person be offended by this contact in this setting?

Example 1

Let's talk about a couple of examples to test our understanding of offensive conduct. First, imagine that Donna is tired at work, and so she goes into the kitchen to make a cup of coffee. Pierre is standing in front of the coffee machine with headphones, and while Donna looks for the coffee mug, she taps him on the arm to get his attention to move aside. Pierre looks at Donna and says he's deeply offended and will sue.

In court, Pierre swears that he was truly offended, because according to his beliefs, arms are sacred and people should not be touched on them. In this instance, Pierre's claim will be rejected, because Donna's unpermitted contact would not violate a reasonable person's sense of personal dignity. In this context, touching someone on the arm to get their attention is common, or at least not offensive.

Example 2

Let's take another example. Imagine that Donna is now in a classroom teaching a torts lesson, and Pierre is a student. When discussing battery, Donna decides to go out to the students and starts rubbing Pierre on the arm, touching him and illustrating all of the ways in which it would be inappropriate to touch someone. It may be the case that Pierre could be offended by the contact, and embarrassed, and find it offensive that he was touched in this way.

This would be because students have a reasonable expectation to not be touched by their professors during the lesson, and so the context would be inappropriate, and more than just a brush without someone's permission. In this instance, if Pierre were to bring a suit against Donna, it may be more likely that he would succeed in demonstrating that the contact had been offensive. This is because in this setting (that is, in a classroom), people do not expect to be touched by their professor, or at least touched beyond brushing contact or tap on the arm.

Additionally, the degree of touching might make it offensive. In other words, in the second instance, it might be a setting where a reasonable person would find their sense of dignity violated.

Element 3: Contact with the Plaintiff's Person

Sub-element: Plaintiff's Person

Now, let's discuss the third element, contact with the plaintiff's person. What's important to know about this is that this is not limited to the plaintiff's body. A plaintiff's person, in the legal sense, includes anything that the plaintiff is holding or touching, such as holding a bag, a briefcase, or any other object. Now, the Bar Examiners like this rule: If someone strikes the horse I'm riding on, it's actually battery against me, because in the legal sense, right now, the horse is part of my person, because it's something that I'm holding or touching. Bear in mind that the object that is considered a part of a plaintiff's person has to be physically connected to the plaintiff. If the object is not connected, the tort isn't going to be battery.

Sub-element: Contact

Now, what about contact? Be aware that there's such a thing as indirect battery. The offensive contact with the plaintiff's person can be a direct or indirect result of the act. It does not have to be actual touching. For instance, a direct form of battery would be if I punch someone in the face, and my fist makes contact with their nose. However, if I were to shoot a gun at a person, I wouldn't be making contact if the bullet hit the person I was intending to shoot, but the bullet itself would make contact. This would be indirect contact, but it would still count as satisfying the element of a battery.

Examples of Attenuated Contact

An even more attenuated form of contact might be simply blowing smoke in a person's face in a way that's intentional. In this case, particulate matter would be capable of making contact, and that contact would satisfy the requirements of contact for battery.

No Need to be Instantaneous

Another wrinkle that's important to know is that the contact does not need to be instantaneous. In the example of punching someone in the face, of course, contact happens immediately after I take my action. I throw a fist, and it hits someone in the nose, but it doesn't have to be this way.

Classic Example: Poisoning

A classic example of this is poisoning. The defendant might put poison into a plaintiff's sandwich or food, and only hours later the plaintiff becomes sick. Is this still battery? The answer is yes. Even though the offensive contact wasn't instantaneous, and the defendant didn't shove the poison down the plaintiff's throat, it's still considered battery. Another kind of example of this is setting a trap. It might take a long time for the trap to spring and ensnare the plaintiff, but the fact that the trap was set at all, can create the contact that satisfies the requirements of battery.

Notes

Finally, it's important to note that you also don't have to intend the harm that occurs, just the contact. What do I mean by this? Imagine that I throw a punch at someone and hit them in the arm, but my goal isn't to cause them serious injury, just to play around or maybe to cause them light annoyance. However, by throwing this punch, if it does, in fact, cause severe injury, I could still be liable for battery, even if I didn't intend to cause that serious injury. The reason is, what matters is I intended to cause the contact ( that is, the punch making contact with someone else's arm). It doesn't matter if I intended to cause the harm.

Additionally, another thing that is not an element of battery is that you don't have to prove damages in order to be liable. Once liability is proven, courts can decide on monetary damages. In actual life, you might want to prove damages to receive higher compensation, but you don't need to do it in order to be liable. For instance, when we're discussing examples of offensive contact, many of those might not have concrete monetary damages that are easily provable, but those monetary damages are not something that you have to prove in order to satisfy the elements of the intentional tort of battery.