The intentional torts protect a person against deliberate interference rather than careless harm. Intent here is a term of art. It means the defendant acted for the purpose of bringing about the result, or knew that the result was substantially certain to follow. It does not mean the defendant meant to injure or knew the act was wrongful, which is why a practical joke can be a battery.
Elements
- Battery. An intentional act causing a harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff's person, judged by what a reasonable person would find offensive.
- Assault. An intentional act causing the plaintiff reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Fear is not required, and words alone usually are not enough.
- False imprisonment. Intentional confinement of the plaintiff within fixed boundaries, where the plaintiff is aware of it or harmed by it, and there is no reasonable means of escape.
- Transferred intent. Intent to commit one of these torts, or to commit it against one person, carries over to the tort and the victim that actually result.
- Defenses. Consent, self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, and the shopkeeper's privilege to detain briefly on reasonable suspicion.
Leading cases
- Garratt v. Dailey: a child who pulled a chair away could be liable for battery if he knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would hit the ground.
- Vosburg v. Putney: a light kick in a schoolroom was a battery because the contact was unlawful in that setting, and the defendant was liable for the full unexpected extent of the harm.
- Bird v. Jones: partial obstruction of a public road was not false imprisonment, because confinement must be complete rather than merely inconvenient.
Where students go wrong
The first mistake is importing a criminal law idea of intent. Tort intent asks about the contact or the apprehension, not about malice or a desire to harm, and substantial certainty is enough.
The second is missing that the interests protected are different. Battery protects the body, assault protects peace of mind, and a single incident may produce both, one, or neither.
The third is treating consent as a yes or no answer. Consent has a scope, and exceeding it converts a permitted act into a tort, which is how many sports and medical cases are decided.
FAQ
Can there be a battery without injury?
Yes. An offensive contact is enough, and nominal damages are available. That is one of the main differences from negligence, which requires actual harm.
Do words alone create an assault?
Generally not. The plaintiff must apprehend an imminent contact, so words usually need a threatening act or gesture, although words can also negate an otherwise threatening act.
What is transferred intent?
The doctrine that intent to commit one of the traditional trespass torts transfers to a different victim or a different tort that actually results, so aiming at one person and hitting another is still an intentional tort.
Related terms
Working through this in your own casebook takes longer than reading it here. Syllume starts from your syllabus and turns each assigned case into a brief you can study from.