#6550 - Battery - Intentional Torts

TRESPASS TO THE PERSON: BATTERY INTENTIONAL TORTS | 5 BATTERY A battery is a direct act by the defendant causing bodily contact with the plaintiff without their consent - Marion's Case * * * Direct interference with a body o Doesn't matter how severe it is - if contact occurs, it is a battery o Anger is not a factor SS? Cole v Turner Battery and assault are closely related and will often arise on the same facts o Can have one without the other SS? If someone is hit from behind, or hit while sleeping * Battery without assault * Action without threat SS? If someone shakes their fists at someone else but does not hit them, or someone points a gun at someone but does not shoot them * Assault without battery * Threat without action To establish a battery, it must be shown that o A direct act of the defendant made or had the effect of causing contact with the body of another o The direct act was intentional or reckless Answering a battery hypothetical: 1. Definition of battery, with authority 2. Is the act direct, resulting in contact with another? a. Does the plaintiff need knowledge of the contact? 3. Is the act or conduct intentional? 4. Is the act positive, as opposed to passive? 5. Is the act voluntary? 6. Is there a defence to the contact? a. Is there consent? b. Is there a lawful excuse? 6 | INTENTIONAL TORTS WAS THE ACT DIRECT, RESULTING IN CONTACT WITH ANOTHER? * * * There must be bodily contact with the plaintiff o Hostility is not required in Australia The interference of the plaintiff must be as a direct, not a consequential result of the action of the defendant The plaintiff has to show that the contact was direct and intentional o The defendant attempts to show a lack of fault SS? McHale v Watson o The defendant also has to prove the defences Direct v Indirect/Consequential Contact * An injury is direct when it follows so immediately upon the act of the defendant that it may be termed as part of the act * It is consequential if by reason of some other obvious and intervening cause it is regarded as not part of the defendant's act, but rather as a consequence of it o Consequential acts are not battery Scott v Shepherd * Shepherd threw a lighted 'squib' made of gunpowder into the market stall of Yates * Willis, who was close by and to protect himself, picked it up and threw it onto the stall of Ryal. * Ryal, to save his goods, picked it up and threw it. * The squib struck Scott in the face and blinded him in one eye Shepherd a? Willis a? Ryal a? Scott * HELD: Majority found there was a battery for the plaintiff o Defendant's act was unlawful (breach of eace and breach of statute o Willis and Ryal acted under compulsive necessity for their own safety, not as free agents o Therefore, their actions did not break the chain of directness * Blackstone J DISSENTING: injury was consequential and should be an action on the case * This case shows that contact does not need to involve D physically touching P but the act does INTENTIONAL TORTS | 7