Unlike criminal law, which recognizes degrees of various crimes involving physical contact, there is but a single tort of battery.
The tort of battery developed out of a general judicial respect of an individual's autonomy and right not to be interfered with.
[9] In the United States, critics of this doctrine believe that the tort of negligence has superseded the need for transferred intent.
Similarly, a battery occurs if the surgeon allows a cousin who is a plumber with no medical training to help fish out the appendix during the surgery.
Because courts have recognized a cause of action for battery in the absence of body-to-body contact,[13] the outer limits of the tort can often be hard to define.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court attempted to provide some guidance in this regard in the Herr v. Booten case[14] by stressing the importance of the concept of one's personal dignity.
In that case, college students purchased and provided their friend with alcohol on the eve of his twenty-first birthday.
After drinking nearly an entire bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey, the underage man died of acute ethanol poisoning.
In the words of Judge Montemuro, supplying a person with alcohol "is not an act which impinges upon that individual's sense of physical dignity or inviolability.
This was also made clear in the case of Iqbal v Police Officer's Association,[20] where it was held that for trespass to the person, intention or subjective recklessness is required.
Essentially, 'a battery is the intentional application of unlawful force to another person',[21] 'typically A stabs B; X shoots Y; Henry punches Thomas.
The essence of the wrong is the 'invasion of the physical person of the [claimant]'[22] This tort is actionable per se, which means no harm is needed to be proven for the tortfeasor to be held liable.
The key case of Collins v Wilcock[23] clarified the law in this area, establishing: "The fundamental principle, plain and incontestable, is that every person's body is inviolate".
A push or a shove is clearly direct contact, some part of their body has touched your own, however, the courts have also interpreted situations that go far beyond this as 'directness'.
Finally, Intent can be transferred and 'transferred malice' is recognised too within tort law, I.e. in Bici v ministry of Defence.
However, these requirements were not helpful, as they would mean that an unwanted kiss is not a battery due to a lack of anger[29] or hostility.
[17] A doctor is under a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that a patient is aware of risks to which they are likely to attach significance.
[39] Also, if a patient, who is mentally competent, refuses to consent, that is the end of the matter and the treatment cannot proceed as doing so would be a battery.
Even if it puts at risk the life of the patient's unborn child (St George's Healthcare NHS Trust v S).
Aggravated damages are also available but only ''when the trespass to the person constitutes an affront to the claimants dignity, causing them humiliation or injury to feelings.