Assault and Battery

By Gracie Davis – Deputy Executive Assistant at West Virginia Senior Legal Aid, Inc.

Assault and battery are the peanut butter and jelly of the legal world. This article will better inform you on the general law on assault and battery, which typically accompany one another like the childhood snack. You will be informed if you are likely to prevail in the suit, whether you are on the plaintiff’s side or the defendant’s side, and what factors go into that determination.

Although assault and battery often go together, assault is always dual-intent. To prevail on an assault claim, the following must be proven: There was (1) apprehension of an act and (2) anticipation of an imminent offensive/harmful act. Battery, on the other hand, may be single-intent or dual-intent based on the jurisdiction. A way to distinguish the two is thinking that a battery is a touching of the body, and assault is a touching of the mind (although words alone are insufficient).

To prevail on a single-intent jurisdiction battery claim, the following must be proven: (1) The defendant intended to cause (a) a contact or (b) imminent apprehension of a contact; (2) with another’s person; (3) The defendant acted; (4) and harmful or offensive contact resulted (directly or indirectly); (5) The plaintiff did not consent and the defendant’s act was not otherwise privileged. An example of a successful battery claim in a single-intent jurisdiction is a music teacher touching a student’s back to show proper technique, resulting in a back injury.

To prevail on a dual-intent jurisdiction battery claim, the following must be proven: (1) The defendant intended to cause (a) a harmful contact or (b) an offensive contact or (c) imminent apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact; (2) with another’s person; (3) The defendant acted; (4) and harmful or offensive contact resulted (directly or indirectly); (5) The plaintiff did not consent and the defendant’s act was not otherwise privileged. The difference here is that, in addition to the defendant intending an act that will cause a contact and/or imminent apprehension, the defendant must also intend the contact or the imminent apprehension of the contact to be harmful or offensive. For example, a patient in a long-term care facility with degenerative dementia who kicks a worker in the jaw will prevail in a dual-intent jurisdiction because the patient cannot properly form the requisite intent.

The idea of intent is crucial when discussing assault and battery, even though it is subjective. Intent signifies that an individual desired the consequences of their action or believed the consequences were “substantially certain” to occur. To exemplify when an individual is “substantially certain,” imagine an individual making a snowman in 80° weather. When the individual was “substantially certain” that the snowman would melt, which would be subjectively apparent to a trier of fact if the snowman’s family filed an assault suit against the individual, especially with external objective evidence. However, one can intend to cause a harmful/offensive contact even with “good intent.” For example, a doctor gives a blood transfusion to a Jehovah’s Witness and thus commits assault and battery.

To reiterate, requisite intent is subjective. Therefore, intent is satisfied even if the act did not intend the precise injury/harm that occurred. For example, if an individual hits another and causes them to fall and hurt their neck, the intent requirement is satisfied. When the intent requirement is satisfied, the individual’s liability extends to unintended and even unforeseeable consequences since the act is intended. Additionally, if all battery requirements are met, the individual would be liable for battery for causing contact with a person’s clothing, an object the person is holding, or an object the person is occupying or leaning against. This is because a battery can occur directly or indirectly.

Suppose the requisite intent is present and the individual has no personal characteristics that would prevent intent formation (which would not necessarily include age-related cognitive state). In that case, it is legally excusable that their thoughts were irrational and/or the consequence of a delusion. If both parties are “innocent,” the injuring party is supposed to bear the loss.

Intent is not only subjective, but it is also transferable in 2 ways: (1) between persons and (2) between torts. First, there is a transfer between people when an act is committed with the intention of causing an offensive (but not harmful) contact or causing imminent apprehension of a harmful/offensive contact, and the act results in bodily contact. Though there was no intent to cause bodily harm, the actor is liable for battery. Second, there is a transfer between torts when an act is done with the intention of inflicting an offensive (but not harmful) contact or causing imminent apprehension of the contact against a third person, and the act results in the harmful bodily contact of another individual. Though the intention did not involve the harmed individual, the actor is still liable to the individual for battery.

In sum, assault and battery cases can have varying outcomes based on what jurisdiction one is in. Additionally, assault and battery are more than just fighting – they can arise when one causes contact with another, even with an unintended victim, which results in harm and/or injury. For further aid, please connect with a licensed attorney. West Virginia Senior Legal Aid is dedicated to defending seniors' rights.