In common law, batteries are deliberate errors (or, in Australia, negligent) and voluntarily bring harmful or indecent contact with someone or something closely related to them (eg hat, a wallet). Unlike attacks, where the fear of contacts that will soon be able to support civil claims, the battery involves actual contact. Contact may be made by one person (the tortfeasor) of another (victim), with or without weapons, or possible contact with the object brought by the tortfeasor. For example, by deliberately bringing a car into contact with another person, or a deliberate beating of a person with a throwing stone, is a battery.
Unlike criminal law, which recognizes the degree of various crimes involving physical contact, there is one battery charge. By lightly snapping one's ear is a battery, like beating someone with a tire iron. There is no separate lawsuit for a battery that is sexual. However, the jury that is listening to the battery case is free to assess the higher damage to the battery in which the contact was very offensive or dangerous.
Since it is virtually impossible to avoid physical contact with others during everyday activities, everyone is deemed to agree on certain physical contacts with others, such as when one person does not want to brush or bump into another person in an elevator, aisle, or ladder that crowded. However, physical contact may not be considered an agreement if the action causing the damage is prohibited.
Video Battery (tort)
Required contacts
The battery is a form of violation to that person and therefore no actual damage (eg injury) needs to be proven. Only proof of contact (with the appropriate level of intent or omission) to make. The attempt to perform a battery, but without actual contact, may be a tort of assault.
Battery need not require body-to-body contact. Touching a "closely connected" object to someone (like the object it holds) can also be a battery. Furthermore, contact can be a battery even if there is a delay between the defendant's actions and contact with the plaintiff's injury. For example, where someone who dug a hole with someone else's intentions will fall into it later, or where the person who mixes something offensive in a meal that he or she knows someone else is going to eat, has been doing the battery against the other when the other did in fact fall to the pit or eat offensive problems.
United States
In the United States, the common law requires contacts to the battery to be "harmful or offensive." The attack was measured against a reasonable standard of people. Looking at the contact objectively, as a reasonable person would see it, would this contact be offensive? Thus, a hypersensitive person will fail on battery action if driven by fellow passengers on the subway, since this contact is expected in normal society and a reasonable person will not feel offensive. Dangerous is defined by any physical damage to the body.
Because the court has acknowledged the cause of action for the battery in the absence of body-to-body contact, the outer limits of the tort are often difficult to determine. The Pennsylvania High Court is trying to give some clues to this in Herr v. Booten by emphasizing the importance of the concept of one's personal dignity. In this case, students buy and give their friends alcoholic drinks on the eve of his twenty-first birthday. After drinking almost a bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey, the underage man died of acute ethanol poisoning. Reversing the court's decision, the Pennsylvania High Court stated that supplying soft drinks with alcoholic beverages, while certainly an inattentive act, did not rise to battery level. In the words of Judge Montemuro, supplying a person with alcohol "is not an act that affects the sense of dignity or the inviolability of the individual."
Maps Battery (tort)
Awareness is not required
The battery victim does not need to be aware of the action at the time of the lawsuit. For example, if a surgeon performs an appendectomy on an unconscious patient deciding to remove the patient's spleen for his personal collection, the surgeon has performed a battery against the patient. Similarly, a battery occurs if the surgeon allows a cousin who is a plumber without medical training to help eject the appendix during surgery. Although the patient has agreed to be touched by the surgeon, this agreement does not extend to those individuals whose patients will not anticipate would reasonably participate in the procedure.
The battery may occur even if the victim does not know the contact at that time and the defendant is not near the scene at the time of contact. If a bully puts an offensive substance in someone else's diet, and the other person consumes offensive substances, the battery has been performed even if the victim is not aware that they have been eating something offensive until long later.
Intent rate
The level and quality of intentions in the civilian battery (torture) is different from the criminal battery. The level and quality of sufficient intentions for batteries also varies between countries of common law, and often in different jurisdictions of those countries. In Australia, negligence in action is sufficient to establish intent. In the United States, the intention to take action eventually leads to enough contact for the battery tort, while the intention to inflict injury on the others is necessary for the criminal battery.
Intentions can be transferred by battery, that is, someone swings to hit one person and misses and suppresses another. It is still responsible for the battery. Intentions to perform different torts can transfer in the same way. If someone throws a stone at someone who intends to frighten them (but does not hit it), they will be responsible for the battery to the different person affected by the rock.
Defense
Defense standards for unauthorized entry to persons, namely need, approval, self-defense, and defense of others, apply to the battery. As a practical example, under need defense, a doctor can touch someone without the person's consent to provide medical assistance to him in an emergency.
Under the defense of consent, a person who, either express or implied, agrees to participate in a sports contact can not claim the battery against other participants for contacts authorized by the sport's rules, or is expected to occur in the play process. For example, basketball players who commit foul violations against opposing players do not do batteries, because offense is a regular part of the game, even though they result in a penalty. However, players who hit other players during the time-out will be responsible for the battery, as there is no reason associated with the game for such contact to occur.
Self-defense against the battery may occur when a person reasonably believes that he or she will be attacked by another person, and involves engaging in a reasonable level of physical contact with that person to prevent the person from becoming physically involved. attack.
References
See also
- Battery (crime)
- Assault
- Assault (tort)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments