Trespass to Person - Battery

Among other charges, the plaintiff alleges battery or trespass as one of the offenses committed by the defendant. The question now becomes what constitutes a charge of battery and or trespass and does this embody any of the elements or circumstances that may apply to this particular case. According to criminal law, a battery is defined as both a tort and a crime, and involves the unlawful or unwanted physical contact of another person. This is supported by the reading, “Battery is the actual touching” (Showalter, 2017, pg.127). A trespass to person is any act that excites an apprehension of battery. This is supported by the text, “Trespass to the person is a tort which involves wrongs being done to an individual” (Trespass to the person,

The unlawful performing of sexual acts involving body penetration by a person against the will or consent of another living being.

In Battery section 13 a and section 18 a, is similar to Assault section 21 a. However, Battery sections 13 b it states, “a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results”. And section 18 b states, “an offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results”.

B. Battery. A battery is a volitional act by the defendant which intentionally causes the

Sexual abuse – knowingly causing someone to engage in an unwanted sexual act by force or threat

Torts can fall under 3 categories intentional torts, negligent torts, and strict liability. Intentional torts include intentionally

An assault is: An unlawful attempt, coupled with apparent ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another; or An intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

Battery is defined as “an intentional and offensive touching of another without lawful justification” according to Black’s Law Dictionary. The three main elements that

By shooting her husband, the Defendant is the proximate cause of Mrs. Summer’s injury of situational anxiety and psychological hysteria. In order to show that a defendant is the proximate cause of a plaintiff’s injuries, the plaintiff must show that there was a sufficiently close, actual, causal connection between defendants conduct and the actual damage suffered by plaintiff. Rickstad v. Holmberg, 456 P.2d 355 (Wash. 1969). There are two elements in displaying the casual connection. First, plaintiff must show that the defendant’s action is the cause in fact plaintiff’s injury. Second, plaintiff must show that the defendant is the legal cause of her

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. (85)

A. The Plaintiff must prove unreasonable force was used to make a prima facie showing of battery.

Physical abuse is using physical force in a non-accidental way which results in bodily injury, pain or impairment.

Or simply called, assault is the attempt to commit battery or do bodily harm. This is an act that is made to create fear of injury on a victim. You might be wondering if an actual physical contact is needed to find that a person is guilty of the crime – misdemeanor assault; the fact is, you don’t need to.

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: 1. the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; 2. the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and 3. the conduct must be the cause 4. of severe emotional distress. This is exactly what happened din this case. Steve Steel not only knocked the phone out of Prudence’s hand but also broke down the door and threatened Prudence with force and made her scared for her life. I do believe that negligence is a part of this case. A person who engages in activities that pose an unreasonable risk toward others and their property that actually results in harm, breaches their duty of reasonable care. Steve Steel did not show a proper care of duty with Prudence. I think that Steve Steel should also be responsible for all of the physical and mental damages since he did not show reasonable care. I think the tort liability in this case would be assault and battery. An assault involves three things that we see in this case. An assault occurs when an intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force; under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril; where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented. A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or

When a person violates another person’s legal rights deliberately it is considered an intentional tort (Mayer et al. n.d.). Intentional torts are when someone is assaulting someone, trespassing on a person private property, false imprisonment of an individual or individuals,