2. Purposely touching or applying force on other
persons or things related to the person without his
consent with the intention to harm the person is
known as a battery. It is only considered when there is
an actual physical contact without the consent of the
person to harm the person. Generally, assault is followed
by the battery which is the reason assault and battery are
mostly used together.
Law of Torts-BATTERY
6. Case laws
Garratt vs. Dailey
• Statement of Facts: In this case, the defendant was 5 year boy who visited the plaintiff’s home.
When the plaintiff was about to sit on a chair, the defendant moved the chair, as a result, the
plaintiff fell down and had his hip broken. In response to this, the plaintiff sued the defendant for
battery. The plaintiff’s sister contended that the defendant had intentionally moved the chair.
However, the plaintiff contended that he moved the chair with the intention to replace it and
prevent the fall.
• Court’s observation: The court decided in favour of the defendant by believing in the testimony
given by the plaintiff. And concluded that the boy did not possess any unlawful or willful purpose
to cause harm to the defendant. Although, the court dismissed the action but the court said that
the loss of $11,000 was suffered by the plaintiff.
• Rationale: The absence of the intention does not amount to the offence of battery under tort.
Thus, tortious liability does arise in this case.
7. Vosburg vs. Putney
• Statement of facts: A Fourteen-year-old plaintiff, had injured his leg, which did not heal quickly. One day his classmate,
eleven-year-old boy (defendant), made contact with the plaintiff’s leg just below the knee, whereby technically
committing an offence of battery. Initially, the plaintiff did not feel the contact, as it was very light, but a few minutes
later the plaintiff experienced severe pain at the site. The injury became so severe, that the plaintiff suffered vomiting
and swelling, which resulted in two surgeries, and it was discovered that the bone in the plaintiff’s leg had degenerated
so badly that the child lost the use of his leg, thereby leading to permanent impairment. So Andrew Vosburg’s (plaintiff)
parents filed a lawsuit against George Putney (defendant) for battery.
• Court’s Decision: The trial court after due investigation decided in plaintiff’s favor, by awarding him $2,800. Defendant’s
family appealed, which lead to a new trial was ordered due to an error in the first trial. During the trial, defendant’s
defence contended that he had a lack of knowledge that plaintiff already suffered from an injury, and so he had no
intention to cause such a severe injury. The trial court again decided in favor of plaintiff by awarding him only $2,500.
• Rationale: The case of Vosburg v. Putney is an exclusive example of the rule in common law which is called the
“eggshell skull rule,” which means that an individual (the defendant) takes another individual (the plaintiff) as he finds
him. It is immaterial that the defendant lacked knowledge that the plaintiff had a prior injury (“eggshell skull”), as he
should know that his actions might cause serious injury/ implication on the health to another person.
8. Conclusion
Wherefore, battery is an offence which has both civil as well as
criminal remedies. The plaintiff possesses both the civil and criminal
remedies. If the plaintiff wants the compensation then he may
knock the doors of civil court and in case he wants to punish the
tortfeasor by the imprisonment then he may approach the criminal
court.
