Battery
The tort of intentionally applying force to another person's body without consent or lawful justification
In one minute
Battery is the direct and intentional application of force to another person's body without consent or lawful justification. The force can be slight. Injury is not needed.
It is actionable without proof of damage. In exams, this topic is asked as "define battery and distinguish it from assault", and as a problem on everyday touching, accidents and defences.
Exam focus
- Frequency: Rarely asked
- Usually asked as: Short answer (4 to 6 marks)
Legal provision
- No Indian statute defines civil battery. The tort comes from English common law and is applied in India as justice, equity and good conscience.
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: the use of force and criminal force are also offences. Hurt is punished separately. The civil claim and the criminal case can run together.
Meaning and definition
Battery is the intentional and direct application of force to the person of another, without lawful justification. Force includes the slightest touching. The touching of clothes or of something held by the claimant can also count. The claimant need not be aware of it. A person touched while asleep has a claim.
Detailed explanation
Step 1: The essentials
- Force applied to the claimant's body. It can be slight. In Cole v. Turner, Holt CJ said that the least touching of another in anger is a battery.
- Directness. The force must follow directly from the defendant's act. Setting something in motion that strikes the claimant counts, as in Scott v. Shepherd (1773), where a lighted squib thrown into a market house passed from hand to hand and injured the claimant's eye.
- Intention. The defendant must intend the contact. A purely accidental touch with no fault is not battery. Negligent harm is dealt with under negligence.
- No consent and no lawful justification.
Step 2: Everyday touching
- Ordinary contact in daily life is not battery. Jostling in a crowd or a tap on the shoulder is accepted by everyone.
- In Collins v. Wilcock (1984), a policewoman took hold of a woman's arm to stop her walking away, and she was not arrested. This went beyond ordinary touching and was battery.
- Holt CJ in Cole v. Turner said that two people meeting in a narrow passage may gently touch to pass. Using more violence than necessary makes the touch a battery.
Step 3: A continuing act
In Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969), a driver stopped his car on a police officer's foot and then refused to move it. The court treated the driving on to the foot and the staying there as one continuing act. The battery was complete when the intention came into existence while the force was still being applied.
Step 4: Hostility and medical treatment
- Courts have debated whether the touch must be hostile. Modern authority treats it as unlawful when it goes beyond what everyday life accepts.
- Medical treatment without the patient's agreement can be battery.
Step 5: Defences
- Consent, express or implied, as in sport or surgery. Consent is valid only within its scope.
- Self-defence and defence of another, with reasonable and proportionate force.
- Lawful authority, such as a valid arrest with reasonable force.
- Lawful correction by a parent or a person in charge, which is now narrowly allowed.
- Necessity, to prevent a greater harm.
Step 6: Remedies
- Battery is actionable per se (without proof of damage). The claimant gets damages for the invasion, injury, medical costs and humiliation.
- A court can award exemplary damages for outrageous conduct.
- An injunction can stop repeated attacks.
- Criminal prosecution can follow separately.
Don't confuse: battery and assault
| Point | Battery | Assault |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Force actually applied | Fear of immediate force |
| Contact | Needed, however slight | Not needed |
| Claimant's awareness | Not essential | Essential |
| Example | Striking a stranger from behind | Raising a fist in front of him |
Battery. In Kakinada, a shopkeeper pushes a customer out of the shop in anger. The force was direct and intended, and the customer had not agreed. This is battery.
Not battery. A passenger in a crowded Hyderabad bus is jolted into another passenger when the bus brakes. There is no intention and no fault. Nothing is actionable.
Common mistakes
- Saying that battery needs injury. Slight touching is enough.
- Saying that the claimant must see the touch. Awareness is not needed.
- Treating all touching as battery. Everyday contact is accepted.
- Forgetting that intention is needed. A pure accident is not battery.
- Forgetting that consent is limited to its scope.
Apply it
Problem
During an argument at a bus stand in Tirupati, Suresh grabs Kiran's collar and shakes him. Kiran had not agreed to be touched. Suresh says he did no real harm.
Question. Is Suresh liable for battery?
Rule. Battery is the direct, intentional application of force, however slight, without consent or lawful justification. Damage need not be proved.
Application. Grabbing the collar and shaking is direct and intentional force on Kiran's person. There was no consent and no justification such as self-defence.
Conclusion. Suresh is liable for battery. Kiran can claim damages without proving injury, and can also complain to the police.
Leading case laws
- Cole v. Turner (1704)
Facts. Chief Justice Holt stated the rule at Nisi Prius on touching in anger and touching in passing.
Principle. The least touching of another in anger is battery. Gentle touching to pass in a narrow place is not.
Significance. The opening rule of battery.
- Scott v. Shepherd (1773)
Facts. A lighted squib thrown into a market house was thrown on by others and burst in the claimant's face.
Principle. The first thrower was liable, because the force followed directly from his act.
Significance. Force can be indirect through an object set in motion.
- Collins v. Wilcock (1984)
Facts. A policewoman took hold of a woman's arm to detain her for questioning without arresting her.
Principle. Ordinary touching is allowed. This went beyond it and was battery.
Significance. Sets the limit of everyday contact.
- Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)
Facts. A driver stopped his car on a police officer's foot and refused to move.
Principle. Driving on and staying on were one continuing act.
Significance. Intention can arise while the act continues.
How to write this answer in the exam
5-mark answer
- Define battery.
- State the essentials: force, directness, intention, no consent or justification.
- Cite Cole v. Turner.
- Say it is actionable per se.
10-mark answer
- Definition and nature.
- Essentials with Scott v. Shepherd.
- Everyday touching and Collins v. Wilcock.
- Continuing act: Fagan.
- Battery compared with assault.
- Defences.
- Remedies and criminal liability.
Key points to remember
- Battery is the direct, intentional application of force without consent or justification.
- The least touching in anger is battery (Cole v. Turner).
- Everyday contact is not battery. A pure accident is not battery.
- The claimant need not be aware of the touch.
- Actionable per se. A criminal case can run in parallel.
Quick self-test
1. Does battery need injury?
No. Slight touching without consent or justification is enough.
2. Is a touch in a crowded bus battery?
No, if it is accidental. Everyday contact without intention is not battery.
3. What did Fagan decide?
Driving onto the foot and staying there was one continuing act, so the battery was complete.