Battery

Question 1

Battery - Definition

Answer 1

• an intentional infliction of a harmful or offensive contact w/ the plaintiff (Rst 2d Section 13)

Question 2

Battery - Intentionality

Answer 2

Act must be intentional:

• must be for the purpose of inflicting harmful or offensive contact
• OR realize that such harmful or offensive contact is substantially certain to result

Question 3

What do you need to intend?

Answer 3

• you definitely need intent w/ respect to contact w/ other person’s body, and you DON’T need intent as to the specific injuries suffered as a result of the core battery
• BUT some debate about whether you need intent as to the harmful or offensive quality of the contact - majority approach says you need to find some slice of a culpable state of mind for this aspect (reasonable person would suspect harmful/offensive) but some are strict liability on this

Question 4

Garratt v. Dailey - Facts

Answer 4

• Brian Dailey (5 yrs old) visiting Naomi Garratt
• sister Ruth Garratt goes to sit down in a spot where a chair had been that Brian pulled away to sit in himself -> Ruth breaks her hip

Question 5

Garratt v. Dailey - Holding

Answer 5

• court ultimately remands to determine whether Brian had sufficient knowledge that Ms. Garratt would be sitting down -> if he did, that constitutes intent
• on remand, lower court then found Brian did have the knowledge -> ruled for pl

Question 6

Garratt v. Dailey - Rule

Answer 6

Intent for battery can come from either:

• purpose (hard intent) OR
• knowledge to a substantial certainty (soft intent)

Question 7

Ellis v. D’Angelo - Facts

Answer 7

• Ellis pushed to ground by 4 yr old def -> said she suffered physical injuries as a result + sued the 4 yr old for battery

Question 8

Ellis v. D’Angelo - Rule

Answer 8

• a child can possess the intent necessary to establish an actionable tort claim
• focuses on the child’s mental capacity to intend the harmful action
• note that the court did not require the child understand the wrongfulness of the conduct - just needed to intend the physical contact (strict liability-esque conception of battery - you don’t need to intend the action be harmful or offensive, you just need to intend the action itself)

Question 9

Jones v. Fisher - Facts

Answer 9

• employers loaned employee money for an upper plate in her mouth
• employee got another job -> when she went to pick up last paycheck, employer requested she pay the $200 back in three days or would take the plate from her -> she refused, + employer used physical force to take plate out of mouth
• since no question of liability, case is largely about damages

Question 10

What remedies are available for battery?

Answer 10

• substantial jury discretion
• only set aside as excessive when there’s indication that it was result of passion, prejudice or corruption, or clear that jury disregarded evidence or rules of law
• compensatory damages + punitive damages

Question 11

Compensatory Damages

Answer 11

• compensate individual for whatever loss of well-being he or she has suffered as a result of the injury

Includes:

• medical costs
• lost wages
• pain and suffering (difficult to calculate)

Question 12

Punitive Damages

Answer 12

• not really about compensating the injured party, more concerned w/ punishment to wrongdoer/deterrent to others
• test: malice, “character of outrage frequently associated w/ crime”, “wanton, willful or reckless disregard of plaintiff’s rights”

Question 13

Jones v. Fisher - Holding

Answer 13

• jury gave $1000 for compensatory damages at trial -> appellate cuts down to $500
• jury gave $5000 for punitive -> appellate cuts down to $2000
• compensatory damages cover actual harm to pl, vs. punitive set up as punishment to defs so there is specific + general deterrence from act occurring again

Question 14

Jones v. Fisher - Rule

Answer 14

• In torts, damages may be nominal, compensatory, or punitive, + can also ask for injunction
• for punitive damages for battery, court needs to see some sort of wanton disregard for rights of another

Question 15

Battery and Consent

Answer 15

• consent is an affirmative defense to battery -> if you have consent, all the harm + offense of battery goes away

Complicating Factors:

• q of scope of consent
• manifestations of consent (objective controls over inward emotion)
• context matters

Question 16

Consent - Subjective vs. Objective

Answer 16

• consent has both subjective + objective elements
• subjective b/c focusing on whether pl really did consent, not just asking whether reasonable person would’ve agreed
• BUT both presence + content of actual consent determined objectively -> presence deals w/ external manifestation (how pl’s conduct appears to other reasonable persons) + content = blend of convention (what people normally know/think in entering into particular activity) + prescription (fairness - what kind of contact is legit given nature of the activity)
• content deals w/ what reasonable person would’ve understood self to have consented to in context at hand

Question 17

Mink v. University of Chicago - Facts

Answer 17

• defendants administered drug to pl’s w/o consent -> 20 yrs later, turns out drug could cause their children to be at increased risk for cancer
• defs brought three claims (battery, negligence for failure to warn, + strict liability claim against drug manufacturer) -> only the battery claim survives

Question 18

Mink v. University of Chicago - Rule

Answer 18

• lack of consent automatically means that the contact was offensive in nature (can qualify as battery even if no actual physical harm to pl’s)

Question 19

Mink v. University of Chicago - Holding

Answer 19

• court leaves scope of pl’s consent for jury to decide, but says battery claim can proceed
• non-emergency treatment w/o consent -> affirmative act intended to cause offensive contact (offensive b/c lack of consent, + doesn’t matter that pl’s took the pills themselves, it’s enough that defs set this in motion) + administration of drug was intentional -> battery
• proof of “technical invasion of integrity of person” - the medical treatment doesn’t actually need to be harmful, the lack of consent automatically makes it offensive

Question 20

Battery vs. Negligence in Medical Treatment

Answer 20

• battery when doctor performs non-emergency med treatment on patient w/o consent
• negligence when lack of informed consent (dr fails to properly inform patient of risk)
• court says battery if dr has consent to do one procedure but chooses to do another

Question 21

Cooper v. Lankenou Hospital - Facts and Procedural Posture

Answer 21

• 2012, PA Supreme Court
• Cooper brought medical battery suit - said subjected to C-section w/o consent
• jury instructions said 1) battery requires intent to cause harmful or offensive contact and 2) if surgery done w/o consent, it constitutes battery
• jury found in favor of drs

Question 22

Cooper v. Lankenou Hospital - Decision and Dissent

Answer 22

• appeals court upheld verdict - said jury instructions were correct statement of the law
• dissent argued correct, but confusing to the point of error -> should’ve just said the lack of consent part, harmful/offensive contact confuses jury

Question 23

O-Brien v. Cunard Steamship Co. - Facts

Answer 23

• ship passenger vaccinated while on board -> q of whether or not consent
• vax’s offered to passengers to help them satisfy Boston vax req-> she was assembled in line of passengers + communicated she’d been vax’d before but left no mark -> dr said she should be vax’d again + she held up arm (not physically forced to do so but did not verbally convey her desire to be vax’d) + ultimately took ticket of vax to use at quarantine

Question 24

O’Brien v. Cunard - Ruling

Answer 24

• court says she indicated by her conduct “desire to avail” self of provisions made for passengers’ benefit + nothing to indicate lack of consent -> ruling of directed verdict for def. in lower court was correct
• in determining whether pl consented, you look to over acts + manifestations of pl’s consent - if pl objectively manifests consent, unexpressed feelings to the contrary aren’t important

Question 25

Markley v. Whitman - Facts

Answer 25

- 1893 - Boys playing a "horse"/"rush" game - the boy they pushed in the front suffered injuries (boy was not playing the game + did not expect the push) - defs argued it was a game

Question 26

Markley v. Whitman - Holding

Answer 26

- court held pl was right - hadn't shown any real or implied consent that he wanted to be part of the game -> unconsented contact-> BATTERY b/c no reasonable expectation of getting pushed

Question 27

Continuum of Consent

Answer 27

- express - tacit (ex: join a game of touch football) - "implied" by law - ex: if someone grabs another as they're falling off a cliff (basically equiavlent to where danger of life or limb) -> assume they WOULD consent if they had the opportunity

Question 28

Medical Consent - Old Rule

Answer 28

- unless it's a matter of life or death, any extra procedure without consent constitutes a battery

Question 29

Medical Consent - New Rule

Answer 29

- consent is general in nature, may extend to remedy abnormality/disease according to professional judgment

Question 30

Medical Consent - Present Rule

Answer 30

- informed consent - try to get consent of a relative, + if no relative avail, most courts recognize dr's privilege to extend surgery w/in area of initial incision, unless extension involves destruction of a bodily function

Question 31

Medical Consent Where Unconscious Patient Requiring Immediate Treatment

Answer 31

Dr has privilege to give treatment if: - a reasonable person would consent to it - there is no reason to believe that this particular patient would not consent to it - delay would involve risk of serious harm

Question 32

Kennedy v. Parrott - Facts

Answer 32

- pl. suffered phlebitis resulting from deliberate + unauthorized puncture of cysts on her left ovary during performance of an authorized appendectomy

Question 33

Kennedy v. Parrott - Ruling

Answer 33

- court rules in favor of dr - says general consent to remedy any abnormal/diseased condition at site of incision whenever dr "in exercise of sound professional judgment" determines correct procedure dictates extension - rule applies when patient can't give consent @ time of decision + no one w/ authority to consent for patient is available

Question 34

Self-Defense as a Defense to Battery

Answer 34

- authorizes use of force to prevent an impending battery or stop one that is in progress - defendant must reasonably believe that use of physical force is necessary to prevent an attack or imprisonment (objective standard: reasonable person in a similar situation) - no right to go beyond what is necessary