Brief notes in battery under torts

1. PRINCIPLESOFLAW
Battery may be defined as the intentional and direct application of force to another person
withoutthatperson’sconsent.Thistouchingneednotnecessarilyinvolve violence.The tortof battery
protectsan individual fromany interference ontothisperson,thus it preservesaperson’sdignityas
well ashisreputation.
In ordertoarise the issue of battery,one personmustfulfilledall the elementsneededwhich
are the mental state of defendant, the defendant’s act was under his control, contact towards the
victimandit isdone withoutthe plaintiff’sconsent.
The first element of battery is the mental state of the defendant. The defendant must have
appliedthe force withintention.The general rule isthatthe intentionrelatestothe directact of the
defendantbutthe doctrine of transferredintentwidensthe scope andmeaningof intention,thereby
extendingthe possibleliabilityof the defendant.Itcanbe seeninthe case of Scott v Shepherd.Inthis
case,a lightedsquibwasthrownbythe defendantintoanopenmarketarea.A pickeditupandthrew
toB,whothenpickeditupandthrewitaway.Thesquibhittheplaintiffwhereuponitburstintoflames.
It washeldthatthe defendantwasliableforthe tortof trespass topersonalthoughhisinitialgestures
did not directly affect the plaintiff. Here, A and B reacted for their own safety, and so they did not
have the required‘intention’tocommitthe act.
The secondelementof batteryis the defendant’sactwasunder hiscontrol.The defendant’s
act must be done voluntarily.InGibbonsv Pepper,the defendantwasridinga horse whensomeone
hit the horse from behind, causing the horse to bolt. The horse collided with the plaintiff, and in an
action againstthe defendant,the courtheldthat the defendantwasnot liable asthe incidentof the
horse boltingandcollidingwiththe plaintiff wasoutside hiscontrol.
The third element of battery is the act of contact against the victim of battery.If there is no
contact or applicationof force onthe plaintiff’sbodyorclothing,there willbe nobattery.‘Force’here
isequivalentto‘unwanted’.Noviolenceisnecessary.Generallyanyphysical contactwiththe bodyof
the plaintifforhisclothingwouldbe sufficienttoconstitute‘force’,butithasbeenheldthatthrowing
wateronthe plaintiffmayconstituteabatterybutthrowingwateronthe clotheswornbythe plaintiff
may notnecessarilybe battery.Thisexplainsthatcontactwiththingsattachedtothe personwill only
amounttoabatteryif there isatransmissionof force tothe bodyof theplaintiff.Itfollowsthatcontact
per se with a person will not be construed as ‘contact’ for the purposes of the tort of battery. The
contact mustgive rise to an insultorindignityarisingfromthe touching.
HoltCJ inCole vTurnerstatedthatthe leasttouchingof anotherinangerisbatteryandif that
two or more personsmeetina narrow passage,andwithoutanyviolence ordesignof harm, the one
touchesthe othergently,there willbe nobattery.
Deliberate verbal and physical abuse as well as conduct giving rise to moral degradation is
clearlya case of touching‘in anger’and amountsto both an assaultas well asbattery.This was held
to be the case where anemployerwasfoundliableforabusingherdomestichelper.
In WilsonvPringle,the courtheldthat there mustbe hostile touchingbefore itamountedto
a battery.Absence of the elementof violence,whichinanycase is not a requirementinestablishing
battery,hostile shouldnotbe adequate withill-will ormalevolence.Aslongas thisdefendantknows
and understandsthathe isdoingsomethingthatthe plaintiff mayobjectto,hostile touchingmaybe
established.

2. The fourthwhichisthe lastelementof batteryisthe act by the defendantwasdone without
the plaintiff’s consent. One cannot touch another person without his consent or any lawful
justification. However, there are touchings where it is presumed implied consent exists, such as
tapping a person’s shoulder in order to get his attention,or touching that occurs wile queuing to go
on a bus.
In Nash v Sheen,the plaintiff wenttoa hairdressingsalonwhere the defendantusedatone-
rinse without first obtaining the plaintiff’s consent. The plaintiff unfortunately developed some skin
complicationsdue toan adverse reactionof the tone-rinse.Itwasheldthat the consentgivenbythe
plaintiff didnotincludethe tone-rinseanditsconsequences.So,batterywasestablished.
In TiongPikHiongvWong SiewGieu,the defendantwasfoundliableinbatteryforscratching
plaintiff’sface andhittingthe latter,due toherjealousyof the plaintiff’sfriendshipwithherhusband.