Also known as: harmful contacts · harmful touching
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A physical impairment of the condition of another's body or physical pain or illness that occurs as a direct or indirect result of an actor's intentional act.
During a heated exchange at Bridge Works, Bianca grabbed a handheld scanner and pressed it firmly against Percy's chest. The pressure produced visible bruising on his sternum and aggravated a preexisting heart condition. Percy later sued Bianca for battery.
Five-year-old Brian pulled a chair out from under Ruth Garratt as she prepared to sit in the yard. Ruth fell and sustained a fractured hip. Ruth sued Brian and his parents for battery.
Brian Dailey (age five years, nine months) was visiting with Naomi Garratt, an adult and a sister of the plaintiff, Ruth Garratt, likewise an adult, in the backyard of the plaintiff’s home, on July 16, 1951. Brian was visiting with Ruth's adult sister, Naomi Garratt, when Ruth came out of her house into the backyard. Brian picked up a wood and canvas lawn chair, moved it a few feet, and sat down in it. Upon seeing Ruth about to sit where the chair had been, Brian stood up and tried to reposition the chair under her, but she fell to the ground anyway. The fall caused Ruth to suffer a fractured hip and other serious injuries, for which damages were determined to be eleven thousand dollars if liability were established. At trial, the court credited Brian's account over Naomi's testimony that Brian had deliberately pulled the chair out from under Ruth. The trial court found that Brian acted without any willful or unlawful purpose and without intent to injure Ruth or cause offensive contact. The trial court dismissed Ruth's battery claim, leading to this appeal in which she sought either a judgment for the stipulated damages or a new trial. Additional procedural matters arose concerning the scope of cross-examination of Brian and the denial of a pretrial deposition.
View casePitcher David Grimsley threw a baseball at batter Manning during a game. The ball struck Manning in the head, causing injury. Manning sued Grimsley for battery.
On September 16, 1975, a professional baseball game took place at Fenway Park in Boston between the Baltimore Orioles and the Boston Red Sox. The plaintiff David Manning was seated as a spectator in the right field bleachers behind a wire mesh fence. Defendant Ross Grimsley, a pitcher employed by defendant Baltimore Baseball Club, Inc., was warming up in the bullpen near those bleachers during the first three innings by throwing a ball from the pitcher's mound to a plate. Spectators in the bleachers continuously heckled Grimsley. On several occasions immediately following the heckling, Grimsley looked directly at the hecklers rather than merely into the stands. At the end of the third inning, after his catcher had left the catching position and was walking toward the bench, Grimsley faced the bleachers, wound up or stretched as though to pitch toward the plate, and threw the ball at more than eighty miles per hour at a ninety-degree angle directly toward the hecklers. The ball passed through the wire mesh fence and struck the plaintiff. Witness Murphy testified that Grimsley had an angry, frustrated look on his face when he released the ball and that he looked directly at people in the stands immediately after verbal remarks. Witness Goldsmith testified that Grimsley looked right directly at the hecklers and that it was right after the comments they yelled. The plaintiff brought a diversity action in federal district court against Grimsley and the Baltimore Club asserting both a battery count and a negligence count. The district judge directed a verdict for the defendants on the battery count. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants on the negligence count, and the district court entered judgment for the defendants on both counts. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment on the battery count to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
View caseHarmful contact exists when an actor's intentional act produces any physical impairment of the body or causes physical pain or illness. The contact may occur directly or indirectly. Visible bruising or a resulting medical condition such as a concussion or sprain satisfies the requirement.
Supporting sources
No. The intent element requires only purpose to cause a harmful or offensive contact or apprehension of such contact. Once that intent and resulting harmful contact are shown, the actor is liable for all consequences that flow from the contact.
Supporting sources
Yes. The Restatement explicitly provides that harmful contact may result directly or indirectly from the actor's act. A push that causes the plaintiff to strike a table and suffer a sprain, or a grab that triggers a preexisting condition, satisfies the element.
Supporting sources
…for battery is given in 1 Restatement, Torts, 29, § 13, as: “An act which, directly or indirectly, is the legal cause of a harmful contact with another’s person makes the actor liable to the other, if “(a) the act is done with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension thereof to the…