Trespass to the person

Battery
The tort of battery occurs when a person intentionally inflicts bodily harm to another.
While it generally involves some form of offensive contact that results in injury, the
tort elements expanded to include contact that does not result in any physical harm.
Elements of Battery
Battery occurs when one person inflicts physical harm on another. There are several
elements that need be present to prove battery:

An act by the person or defendant inflicting harm

-

The act itself may come in one of two forms of contact: actual physical
harm that causes injury, like throwing a person across a room, or
where the contact is not so much physical, but is insulting.

Suppose the pretty woman threw her drink in the stranger's face. That
can be construed as battery. While no physical harm was actually done
except to the suitor's ego, the act remains offensive and insulting.

There was intent to cause harm to the other individual or plaintiff

-

Intent means that the defendant meant to commit the act and can be
either specific or general in nature.

When intent is specific, the defendant performed an act that he knew

would cause injury, like punching someone in the gut.

Whereas, general intent broadens the element to mean that the

defendant is aware that his actions will result in something happening;
the outcome itself may not have been intended.

This is worth explaining. An impish high schooler sneaked behind the

desk of his mean spirited English teacher and sat a sharp tack on her
chair. When the teacher sat on the pushpin, she jumped from her seat.
This set off a chain of events that ended with the teacher on the floor
with several broken ribs.

The student did not set out to specifically break his teacher's ribs, but
he intentionally placed a tack in the chair knowing that something
would happen. This hilarious prank is battery.

Harmful or offensive conduct occurred as a result

-

The final element of battery is harmful or offensive conduct against

another person, and the conduct does not even have to be direct with
the plaintiff.

We know that committing an act like pushing another person is battery.

However, did you know that even if the act was not meant to cause
harm, yet did, it is still considered battery?

To prove this, suppose a beach lifeguard notices a school of ferocious

man-eating sharks just off the shore and fails to warn swimmers.
Should a swimmer be injured as a result of the lifeguard's failure to act,
it can be battery.

You see, a lifeguard has a duty to keep swimmers informed of changes

in swimming conditions like rough seas, rip current and especially
hungry sharks.

Violence that causes grave harm to another person is even more

serious.

CASE :
Summary of Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, 424 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. 1967)
Facts: Plaintiff was attending a seminar luncheon at Brass Ring Club (part of
Carrousel Motor Hotel) and while the plaintiff was waiting in the line to get food, the
defendant (manager of Brass Ring Club) abruptly grabbed the plate from the plaintiff
and yelled in a loud voice a Negro could not be served in the club. Plaintiff was not
physically injured by the defendants conduct, but he did testify that he was
extremely embarrassed by and hurt by the defendants conduct.
Procedure: The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded the $400 in actual damages
and $500 in exemplary damages. The jury also found that the Carrousel Motor Hotel
is liable for the actions of its employee. The judge ruled for the defendant not
withstanding the verdict. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed and ruled that no
assault took place because no physical contact or apprehension of such contact was
made.
Issue: 1. Was there a battery committed in this case? 2. Can the corporate

defendants be held liable for the actions of the defendant?

Holding: 1. Yes, 2. Yes
Rationale: According to the court: it has long been settled that there can be a
battery without an assault, and that actual physical contact is not necessary to
constitute batter, so long as there is contact with clothing or an object closely
identified with the body The defendant in the current case abruptly took the plate
out of the plaintiffs hands. Such snatching of an object out of the hands of a person
is clearly offensive invasion of his person. Furthermore, the court found that
Carrousel Motor Hotel can be held liable for the actions of the defendant because
defendant held the high position of manager of the Brass Ring Club.
CASE :
Rixon v Starcity Pty Ltd
Facts - legislation in NSW governing casinos - casino operators were authorised to
make exclusion orders prohibiting people from entering casino. Also, any employee
of the casino operator was allowed to use reasonable force to eject excluded person
from the casino. Alternatively, an employee was authorised to detain an excluded
person under certain circumstances. Rixon was an excluded person, he ignored that
order and was recognised by an employee, who approached the plaintiff and told
him that he was excluded, and demanded that he go with the employee to an
interview room, where he was detained. The P sued the D for assault and battery.
The case focused on the initial confrontation between the P and employee. The P
claimed the D grabbed him and spun him around.
Court Held - employee had put his hand on Ps shoulder, but not in a violent manner not anger or hostility, and therefore no battery. Trial judge applied Cole v Turner.
On appeal: conclusion of no battery found, but different reasons. The COA said the
absense of anger does not mean there was no battery. The touching doesnt have to
be done in anger or hostility to amount to battery. Rejected Cole v Turner.
Nevertheless, there was no battery because the behavior of the employee fell within
Collins v Wilcox. That is, that the employee tapped the P on the shoulder to get his
attention.
The P must not consent to the contact with the plaintiffs body.
Must the plaintiff know about the contact