Also known as: personal dignity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A criterion for determining whether a bodily contact is offensive in battery. A contact offends this standard when it would disturb an ordinary person's sense of personal dignity rather than being socially acceptable.
Nurse Riley Rivera grew frustrated when patient Regina Robinson refused oral medication. Rivera deliberately snapped a latex glove against Robinson's bare arm while stating it would get her attention. The contact occurred in a medical setting where Robinson was vulnerable and had not consented to any nontherapeutic touch. Because the snap demeaned Robinson without medical purpose, it offended a reasonable sense of personal dignity and supported a battery claim.
Store manager Renee Rogers argued with customer Raphael Rivera over a return policy. Rogers reached across the counter and firmly poked Rivera in the chest with two fingers to emphasize her point. The poke startled and offended Rivera in the midst of the heated exchange. The deliberate, nonconsensual contact in an argumentative context offended a reasonable sense of personal dignity even though it caused no physical injury.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
No. Battery liability arises from either harmful contact causing physical impairment or pain or offensive contact that offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity. The Restatement defines offensive contact by reference to this objective standard, and exam questions confirm that a deliberately demeaning touch suffices even without bruises or medical injury.
Supporting sources
The standard measures offensiveness by what a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances would find offensive. An actor may make socially acceptable contacts without liability even if the actual plaintiff is unusually sensitive, placing the burden on those with unusual sensibilities to give notice before expecting different treatment.
Supporting sources
A contact offends the standard when it is nonconsensual, serves no legitimate purpose, and would be viewed as demeaning or intrusive by an ordinary person. Exam hypotheticals show that a deliberate glove snap on a refusing patient or a firm chest poke during an argument qualifies because the context renders the touch an affront rather than ordinary social touching.
Supporting sources
…I have seen, the Court has miscalculated and denigrates that interest at a time when escalating assaults on individuality and personal dignity counsel otherwise.[^maj-42] At the very least, the issue is highly debatable, and the Court has not carried its heavy burden of proof to justify tampering with state libel…