Skip to main content

Battery as a tort

                         Battery as a Tort

According to the law, ‘A tort is a civil wrong where there is an infringement of a legal right and the compensation which are awarded in this case is in the form of unliquidated damages as it depends on the situation to situation’. That is the reason which may be considered why our laws for torts are largely uncodified and is totally based on precedents. In plain words, there is nothing which can be predicted before hand as the mentality of people changes from time to time. Nobody knows that what thing may result next that is why our law is largely based n the precedents and also the damages which are awarded is unliquidated that is which are not fixed.

One such tort is in the form of battery. If we go by the literal meaning, it is very different from the context in which it is talked about in law. Because a battery means a device containing an electric cell or a series of electric cells storing energy that can be converted into electrical power but in the context of law battery means intentionally touching or applying force on an individual or the things which are related to that individual without his or her consent to harm. It is different from assault because assault means threatening but without applying actual force. There is no physical contact. For example: If a person stands and tighten his fist with a lot of anger and express words, this would amount to assault whereas when that person will punch some another individual, it will lead to battery. That is the reason normally battery is preceded by assault but whatever the case may be, nothing is universal. It is a general concept that normally assault and battery goes one by one but there is also a battery without assault and an assault without a battery. Also, it is known as trespass to a person because it violates the individual’s autonomy.

If we see, there are two types of battery:

  1. Criminal Battery- In the case of a criminal battery, intentions plays a very significant role. When the person touches or applies force on some another person with the intention of seriously harming him or her or killing that person, then that would amount to criminal battery. The reason behind it is when an offence is considered to be as a criminal offence, intention plays a very major role. That is the mental part or mens rea.

  2. Civil Battery- The case of civil battery is known and recognized in the law of torts because that constitutes a civil wrong. When the person has actually no intention to hurt or kill or harm some another person but eventually commits an act which results in harming. Here, the defendant had an idea that his act may hurt the plaintiff but he or she didn’t do it intentionally.

The essentials of a battery are Intention, Contact, Harm and no lawful justification. And the main and foremost thing is that is performed without the consent of that person. Sometimes, the defendant may argue that it was done out in self defense where he knew that he is going to harm and with the intention to harm but it was done so. It was purely done to protect his or her own body. And the essentials in this case are that the threat which the defendant got was unlawful and there was reasonable fear of harm present. There was no provocation by the accused and the defendant didn’t have any other option to save himself or herself. Other defenses are Defenses of property and the case of consent where the plaintiff voluntarily agreed to that. 

Therefore, battery is a trespass to the person and that is why it is recognized under law. Various remedies are also present to placate the people so that they are not at the back hand.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more