–Battery under torts law
1. Definition of Battery
In Tort Law, Battery is defined as:
“The intentional and direct application of force to the person of another without lawful justification.”
It is important to note:
Intentional Act: The act must be deliberate or intended.
Direct Application of Force: Physical contact can be direct (e.g., hitting) or indirect (e.g., setting a trap).
Without Consent: Consent of the person negates the wrong.
Key Point: Battery focuses on unconsented physical contact, irrespective of whether harm was caused.
2. Essential Elements of Battery
For an act to constitute battery, the following elements must be present:
Intentional Act: The defendant must intentionally do an act that results in contact.
Contact with the Person: The act must result in physical contact with another person.
Unlawful or Without Consent: The contact must be without legal justification or consent.
Harm is Not Necessary: Even if no injury occurs, battery may still be actionable.
3. Key Illustrations
Striking someone with your hand, fist, or object.
Throwing a stone at someone.
Touching someone in an offensive manner.
4. Important Case Laws on Battery
(A) Collins v. Wilcock (1984)
Facts: A policewoman grabbed the arm of a woman to stop her from walking away.
Decision: The court held that any unwanted physical contact constitutes battery.
Significance: Even minor touch can amount to battery if done without consent.
(B) Cole v. Turner (1704)
Facts: One person struck another with his hand.
Decision: The court defined battery as “the least touching of another in anger”.
Significance: Established the principle that battery does not require severe harm; minimal offensive contact is sufficient.
(C) Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)
Facts: Fagan accidentally drove his car onto a policeman’s foot and then refused to remove it.
Decision: The court held that intent can be formed after the act begins, creating battery.
Significance: Introduced the idea of continuing acts forming a battery.
(D) Wilson v. Pringle (1987)
Facts: Schoolchildren’s playful pushing in playground.
Decision: The court distinguished between ordinary jostling (not battery) and hostile contact (battery).
Significance: Battery requires hostile or unpermitted contact.
5. Defenses to Battery
Consent (Volenti Non Fit Injuria): If the person consented, there is no battery.
Example: Sports events where contact is expected.
Self-Defense: Using reasonable force to protect oneself.
Defense of Others: Protecting another person from harm.
Lawful Authority: Actions by law enforcement within lawful limits.
6. Summary
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Definition | Intentional and unlawful physical contact with another person |
| Essential Elements | Intentional act, contact, without consent, harm not required |
| Key Cases | Collins v. Wilcock (1984), Cole v. Turner (1704), Fagan v. MPC (1969), Wilson v. Pringle (1987) |
| Defenses | Consent, self-defense, defense of others, lawful authority |
Conclusion:
Battery under tort law is primarily concerned with protection of personal bodily integrity. Even minor, unpermitted contact can amount to a battery, and courts have consistently emphasized intent and lack of consent as the core elements.
RELATED Blog
0 comments