Skip to main content

Assault & Battery under Law of Torts by Mayurakshi Sarkar at Lexcliq

 Assault & Battery under Law of Torts by Mayurakshi Sarkar at Lexcliq


Introduction

Torts are civil wrongs committed by individuals or legal bodies. Tort has two main goals.

One is to compensate victims of civil wrongs for their losses, damages, or injuries. Damages

are the most prevalent tort remedy. Tort also serves as a deterrence by requiring the tortfeasor

to provide a remedy. A tort suit has three essential components. To begin, it must

be established that the defendant committed a wrongdoing (a failure to act)

Next, it must be shown that the claimant was harmed, damaged, or somehow

affected by the incident. It must also be shown that the defendant owed

something to the plaintiff but failed to do so, so establishing the plaintiff's

liability.

Assault

To attack is to threaten or attempt to inflict bodily harm on another person, as well as to have

the apparent physical ability and purpose to carry out the conduct in question. There is no

need for physical contact during an assault. Threats that do not involve actual physical harm

are not assaults; they must be accompanied by means to put them into action. Assault in law

is defined as "any gesture calculated to excite, in the party threatened, a reasonable

apprehension that the party threatening intends immediately to offer violence, or, in the

language of the Indian Penal Code, is about to use criminal force to the person threatened" if

it is coupled with the present ability to carry out such an intention.

An assault is made by both the intent and the action. Since there is no purpose to assault in

such a remark as "I'm going to hit your hand," it's not considered an assault, but it is an

assault if he holds up his hand to another and says nothing, which is the same as an assault

when he intends to attack but misses.

Elements of Assault

First, the plaintiff must have been aware of an impending bodily touch; second, the plaintiff

must have had a reasonable expectation of such contact; and third, the defendant's

interference must be intentional. However, civil assault intent can be both general and

specific. This means that the defendant acted with a specific intent to elicit fear of danger or

unwanted contact when he or she did so. To say that someone was acting with general intent,

the accused must have known that their actions would raise suspicions about a potentially

harmful or unwanted interaction. While each state's laws differ, it's common for contact to be

considered harmful if it's done with the intent to hurt, deform, impair, or create discomfort.

If the act offends a reasonable person's sense of personal dignity, it is considered offensive.

As a general rule, imminence means that there is little to no room for intervention, even if the


specific facts are different. Last but not least, it is important to distinguish between the

condition of apprehension and general fear, as apprehension needs only that a person is aware

that an act is imminent.

Battery

The purposeful and direct application of any physical force to another person is known as

battery. A rude, furious, vindictive, or insolent act of striking or touching another individual.

An assault is an overt act indicating an immediate intention to conduct a battery. It differs

from an assault in that it requires physical touch to complete. It includes all circumstances

where a party is struck by a missile hurled by another. It doesn't matter if the force is applied

directly to the human body or something around. To prove battery, the plaintiff must show

that the force used was unjustified.

Water thrown at a person is an assault; water falling on him is a battery. The act of riding a

horse at a person is considered an assault. Pulling a chair away from a person preparing to sit

on it is assault until he reaches the floor, and then it is violence. Assault is a popular phrase

for battery. But hand-laying isn't a battery. Consider the party's aim. Touching someone just

to call them isn't a battery.

Elements

In order to establish a case for battery, the following criteria must be met: A

defendant's action; (2) the defendant's purpose to damage or offend the plaintiff;

and (3) the plaintiff's interaction with the defendant.

Conclusion

Battery is a deliberate tort that involves causing unconsented harm to another person or their

property. In the case of batteries, physical contact is vital since batteries cannot be built

without it. Since avoiding daily physical interaction with others is nearly difficult. To be a

battery, physical contact must damage or offend. So, to be liable for battery, one must intend

to continue performing an act that harms another, and the act must involve any physical

behavior or touch. The touch must harm the individual in some way, and the conduct must be

illegal. Also, the victim must be unaware of the conduct, implying that the victim has given

consent. This is a battery.

Comments

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

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

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