Battery

Battery is an act of the defendant, which directly and intentionally (or possibly negligently) causes contact with the body of the plaintiff without the plaintiff's consent.

An Act of the Defendant
According to __Inners v Willey__ the defendant's act must be both positive and voluntary.

In Inners v Willey the court held that battery would not exist where the police officer placidly blocked the doorway as this is an omission rather than a positive act. However, where the police officer takes active steps from stopping the plaintiff from entering the room, battery will exist.

Directness
For directness to be established there must be a connection between the act and the contact. For example, if the plaintiff is hit by a log thrown by the defendant, directness exists. However, if the defendant throws a log, which the plaintiff then trips over there is not direct link.

In __Scott v Sheppard__ the defendant threw a lit firework into a crowd which was then picked up by another party and thrown away. The firework landed in front of the plaintiff and exploded. The defendant argued that that the third party's involvement meant that no directness could be established. The court held that directness existed on the basis that the third party had acted in self preservation and their presence should therefore be ignored. This case serves as an exception to the __Last Act Rule__ for determining directness.

According to __Balkin v Davis__ there needs to be an obvious intervening action without which directness is made out

In __Hitchins__ the defendant warned the plaintiff that he had placed poisoned meat throughout his property. The plaintiff thought that the defendant was lying and took his sheepdogs onto the property. The dogs ate the meat and died. The court held that there needs to be some sort of immediacy between the act and the death for directness to be established. Despite the defendant's actions, the plaintiff took the dogs onto the land and therefore there was no directness. The plaintiff performed an intervening act by brining his dogs onto the neighbours land.

In __Southport Corporation v Esso__ the court held that

Intention
There is no test or authority on intention for battery. If contact was the substantially certain outcome then that is sufficient to satisfy the requirement; and recklessness must also be sufficient

Contact with the Plaintiff's Body
The general rule: the least touching of another is sufficient per //Cole v Turner//.

//__Cole v Turner__// Held – mere touching is enough to constitute contact. Touching must be in anger though.

The general exception: covers all physical contact that is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life per //Collins v Wilcock//.

//__Collins v Wilcock__// Facts - D standing with woman known to be a prostitute. Police seek to question them. D walked away, policeman follows and grabs/restrains D who responded by scratching police officer. D is charged for battery. D argued that the police officer committed the battery against her. Held - touching to get attention is acceptable behaviour. However physical restraint is not. It was found that the police officer went further than getting Ds attention. Held: exception is everyday contact that is deemed acceptable.

The contact does not need to be made in anger per //Rixon v Starcity//.

//__Rixon v Starcity Pty Ltd__// Facts - legislation in NSW governing casinos - casino operators were authorised to make exclusion orders prohibiting people from entering casino. Also, any employee of the casino operator was allowed to use reasonable force to eject excluded person from the casino. Alternatively, an employee was authorised to detain an excluded person under certain circumstances. Rixon was an excluded person, he ignored that order and was recognised by an employee, who approached the plaintiff and told him that he was excluded, and demanded that he go with the employee to an interview room, where he was detained. The P sued the D for assault and battery. The case focused on the initial confrontation between the P and employee. The P claimed the D grabbed him and spun him around. Held - employee had put his hand on Ps shoulder, but not in a violent manner - not anger or hostility, and therefore no battery. Trial judge applied Cole v Turner. On appeal: conclusion of no battery found, but different reasons. The COA said the absense of anger does not mean there was no battery. The touching doesn’t have to be done in anger or hostility to amount to battery. Rejected Cole v Turner. Nevertheless, there was no battery because the behavior of the employee fell within Collins v Wilcox. That is, that the employee tapped the P on the shoulder to get his attention.

The P must not consent to the contact with the plaintiff’s body.

Must the plaintiff know about the contact?