Cole v. Turner
Nisi Prius, 1704.
6 Modern Rep. 149, 90 Eng.Rep. 958.
Here battery is defined. If you’re angry at someone and touch them in
even the slightest way, that’s battery.
On the other hand, if you just graze someone by virtue of being forced
in close quarters, and you didn’t mean to hurt them, that’s not battery. But if you force your way
through in a rude manner or struggle in such a way that might hurt someone,
that is battery.
Notes and Questions
1.
It
depends on whether the coat is “me”, or in other words, if grabbing the coat
constitutes “touching of another”. The
plaintiff would argue that touching the coat means touching the plaintiff, even
if it’s indirect. For example, if the
defendant was wearing gloves and slapped the plaintiff, it seems clear that it’s
battery even though they didn’t touch skin-to-skin. On the other hand, the defendant would argue
that the coat is not the person, and so the defendant didn’t touch the
plaintiff in “the least”.
2.
Let’s
assume that all of the actions you could reasonably expect could be done in
anger are actually done in anger. The
plaintiff would argue spitting is touching in the “least”, but the defendant
would say that if anything, the spit committed the battery, not the
defendant. Removing someone’s hat would
be very similar to the case of the coat.
Attempting to search pockets would be battery for the same reason as the
coat and hat cases, or not battery for the same reason. I don’t see how touching private parts wouldn’t
be battery if it was done in anger. If
it wasn’t done in anger, then it wouldn’t be battery.
3.
This
is certainly not done in anger; no battery.
4.
Battery
is purely an intentional tort now.