Also known as: battery · batteries · intentional battery · battery tort · civil battery
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An intentional tort imposing liability when an actor causes harmful or offensive bodily contact with another through an act done with the intent to cause such contact or an imminent apprehension of it. The contact must result directly or indirectly from the actor's own voluntary movement. Liability attaches even when the actor intends only an offensive contact or acts with knowledge that the contact is substantially certain to occur.
Ivy Ibarra delivers a severe blow to Israel Irving during an argument. Israel, still enraged moments later, kills Ivy. The battery qualifies as adequate provocation that can reduce the killing from murder to voluntary manslaughter.
Isaac Irving shoves Ingrid Innes off a curb intending only to startle her. Ingrid falls and breaks her wrist. The resulting harmful contact satisfies the elements of battery even though Isaac did not desire the injury.
Ian Iverson taps Ibrahim Iqbal lightly on the shoulder while arguing. Ibrahim later kills Ian. The minor contact does not constitute adequate provocation and cannot reduce the homicide to voluntary manslaughter.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Icarus Aviation's employee yanks a rope attached to a platform where Ingrid Innes stands. The platform tips and Ingrid falls, suffering bruises. The employee's voluntary act causes the harmful contact and supports battery liability.
Israel Irving strikes Ivy Ibarra with a serious blow during a confrontation. Ivy immediately kills Israel in the ensuing rage. Courts recognize the battery as one of the classic forms of adequate provocation supporting a voluntary-manslaughter reduction.
Ibrahim Iqbal spits on Ian Iverson intending only to offend him. Ian suffers no physical injury but the contact occurs. The actor remains liable for battery despite lacking any intent to cause bodily harm.
The actor must intend to cause a harmful or offensive contact or an imminent apprehension of such contact. Knowledge with substantial certainty that the contact will result is sufficient even without a desire to injure.
No. Liability arises from any harmful contact or any contact that is offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity. Pain or impairment is not necessary when the contact itself is offensive.
Yes. A child possesses the requisite intent if the child knows with substantial certainty that the harmful or offensive contact will occur. Age alone does not preclude liability when the mental state is satisfied.
Yes. Treatment in the absence of consent constitutes intentional harmful or offensive touching. Even non-negligent treatment gives rise to damages when performed without consent.
No. Mere words and trivial battery are legally inadequate provocation. Only a serious battery inflicted on the defendant or a close relative can reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter at common law.