D reached across the aisle with
his foot and hit the shin of the right leg of the defendant, while at school.


Rules: BatteryAn actor is subject to liability to another for battery if:
(a)

he acts intending to cause a harmful/offensive contact with the person of the
other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
(b) a harmful/offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly
results
Holding/Issue: The appellate court believed that the defendant should be
responsible for any injuries that the plaintiff received as a result of this incident,
whether or not the defendant intended to do any harm and whether or not the
defendant foresaw possible injuries.
General Info:
(a)

Intent to commit the act is all that is neededmust be unlawful intent or
defendant must be in fault
(b)

unlawful intent--disturbed the order & decorum of classroomin class; class
exercises had begun; time & place important action acceptable on
playground (implied license)
(c)

expectationsareas where we will accept this kind of behavior and other
areas where we will not
(d)

Court is setting precedenteven in a case with no intent to harm, when act is
unlawful, person who committed act is liable for all injuries resulting directly
from the wrongful act, which creates a subjective standard of justicewhat is
foreseeable to one person might not be foreseeable to another
(2)

Garratt v. DaileyWhich Mental States Constitute Intent?
Facts: Less than 6 year-old D pulled chair from under P
Rules: Liability for battery if:
a)

act is done with intention of bringing about a harmful/offensive contact
b)

contact is not consented to by other party
c)

contact is not otherwise privileged
--A minor is liable to be proceeded against just like anyone else if they have
committed a tort with force.
Holding/Issue: issue of whether defendant knew with substantial certainty that
the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair had been, and to change
the judgment if the findings warrant it.
General Info:
(a)

Battery act done with intent to harm/offend must been done with purpose
or knowledge w/substantial certainty
(b)

2
nd
Restatement--burden is on the defendant now, not on the plaintiff to prove
consent/privilege
ii)

Contact
(1)

Fisher v. Carrousel Motor HotelWhich Intended Contacts are Wrongful? Facts: As he was about to be served, P was approached by Robert Flynn, who
snatched the plate from Ps hand and shouted that he, a Negro, could not be
served in the club.
Rules:
1.

Contact requirement does not mean that a part of the defendants body must
come into direct contact with a part of the plaintiffs body.
2.

Harm denotes the existence of loss or detriment in fact of any kind to a
person resulting from any cause. (2
nd
Restatement, Statute 7)
Holding/Issue: Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages for mental suffering due to
the willful battery, even in the absence of any physical injury. A principal or
master is liable for exemplary or punitive damages because of the acts of his
agent, but only if: c) the agent was employed in a managerial capacity and was
acting in the scope of employment. Defendant is liable not only for contacts
which do actual physical harm, but also for those which are offensive and
insulting.
General Info:
(a) Restatement, �13 imminent apprehension of harmful/offensive contact
(b)

contact unwarranted by social norms/usages is clearly an offensive invasion .
. . or offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity that would offend
the ordinary person
(2)

Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications, Inc.Which Intended Contacts are
Wrongful?
Facts: P says D repeatedly blew cigar smoke in his face for the purpose of
causing physical discomfort, humiliation and distress.

Rules: Liability for battery like Garrett, and
1.

contact means contact which is offensive to a reasonable sense of personal
dignity is offensive contact
2.

offensive means disagreeable or nauseating or painful because of outrage
to taste and sensibilities or affronting insultingness
Holding/Issue: Court says smoke is particulate matter that has the physical
properties capable of making contact

b)

Privileges (****-This section was not done until after Dignitary Wrongs)
i)

Consent
(1)

OBrien v. Cunard Steamship Co.
Facts: P was vaccinated on ship by D.
Rules: Consent is willingness in fact for conduct to occur. It need not be
communicated to the [defendant]. (2
nd
Restatement of Torts, Section 892(1))
Holding/Issue: If the plaintiffs behavior was such as to indicate consent on her
part, he (the doctor) was justified in his act, whatever her unexpressed feelings
may have been.
General Info:
(a)

need to look at state of mind of both plaintiff and defendant in reasonable
persons mind
(b)

burden on plaintiff to prove elements on battery in prima facie case
(2)

Barton v. Bee Line, Inc. Facts: P, who was 15 at the time, claims that while a passenger of the D, she was
forcibly raped by Ds chauffeur (who says she consented).
Rules: sex with female under 18 [even with consent] is guilty of rape in 2
nd

degree
Holding/Issue: The court is of the opinion that a female under the age of 18 has
no cause of action against a male with whom she willingly consorts, if she knows
the nature and quality of her act.
General Info:
(a)

Statute is trying to provide adequate deterrence, while court seems to focus on
compensation
(b)

Court might look at this by saying that they are becoming a party to
prostitution if they reward the girl for having sex with the manshe would be
selling her virtue for money
(3)

Bang v. Charles T. Miller Hospital
Facts: P had surgery and D cut his sperm cords without his knowledge/consent.
Holding/Issue: It is our opinion that a reasonable rule is that, where a
physician/surgeon can ascertain in advance of an operation alternative situations
and no immediate emergency exists, a patient should be informed of the
alternative possibilities and given a chance to decide before the doctor proceeds
with the operation.
General Info:
(a)

Court says unless he is confident of what he is consenting to, then would not
assume consent
(4)

Kennedy v. Parrott
Facts: During Ps operation the doctor (D) discovered some enlarged cysts on her
left ovary, and he punctured them
Holding/Issue: In short, where an internal operation is indicated, a surgeon may
lawfully perform, and it is his duty to perform, such operation as good surgery
demands, even when it means an extension of the operation further than was
originally contemplated, and for so doing he is not to be held in damages as for an
unauthorized operation.
If patient consents to undergo surgey, then implied consent to any operation to
which a reasonable peson would consent to
General Info:
(a)

Reasonable patient issue has to go to jury, so jury can decide what a
reasonable patient would have done
(b)

Reasonable surgeon issue goes to jury if contest of fact, but since there is no
contest of fact, doesnt seem that it has to go to jury, as judge can decide in
favor of surgeon

(c)

Today--in some cases, the test is what information a reasonable physician
would have provided; others, the test is what information a reasonable patient
would have wanted
(5)

Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.
Facts: While P on ground during football play, D struck a blow with his right
forearm to the back of Ps head and neck Holding/Issue: Contrary to the position of the court then, there are no principles
of law which allow a court to rule out certain tortious conduct by reason of
general roughness of the game or difficulty of administering it
.
When a player engages in an inherently dangerous activity he does not consent to
all injuries that could result from the game
General Info:
(a)

Customs vs. Rulesmight be different, but court says in this case, both are
violated by Clark
(b)

players have expectations about risks they are encountering;

players expect other players to act in their role as football players
ii)

Self-Defense
(1)

Courvoisier v. Raymond
Facts: P, special policeman, shot by D in self-defense.
Holding/Issue: If defendant reasonably believes that an individual is assaulting
him, then he can use means of self-defense and use it as a defense in court
General Info:



(a)
Why should self-defense be a justification for committing a battery?

1.

preventing another battery by acting in self-defense
2.
human
natureacting
instinctively cant fault him for obeying
instinct and responding naturally
(b)
Reasons justification may be allowed:

1.

Human nature
2.

Line-of-duty
3.

Fairnessreciprocityif roles were reversed, Raymond would probably
do the same thing




(c) How do we decide which of 2 innocent victims to leave the costs on?
1.

let society cover costs if there is no wrong-doing
2.

put on person who can bear the costs

3.

deterrencedeter someone like Raymond from taking actions they
feel are necessary or deter someone like Courv. shooting?
ii)

Defense of Property
(1)

Katko v. Briney
Facts: D set up shotgun trap, which injured P when he trespassed.
Rule: Restatement (Second), Section 79Defense of Possession by Force
Threatening Death or Serious Bodily Harm
Holding/Issue: Cannot use force that will take human life or inflict great bodily
injury to protect ones pr