The National law Institute University, Bhopal

PROJECT

on

Analysis of Tort of Battery and its Remedies

Submitted by

Adarsh Jain

Enrolment Number: A-2589

Roll Number: 2023BALLB08

I Semester

B. A. LL. B. (Hons.)

Submitted to

Prof. (Dr.) Rajiv Khare

Date of submission: October 12 2023

1
 DECLARATION

I, Adarsh Jain, S/o Mr. Sachin Jain, Roll Number 2023BALLB08 Enrolment Number A-
2589 do hereby declare that the Project titled “Analysis of Tort of Battery and its
Remedies” is an outcome of my own independent research endeavour and has been carried
out under the guidance of Prof. (Dr.) Rajiv Khare.

Literature relied on by me for the purpose of this Project has been fully and completely
acknowledged in the footnotes and bibliography. The Project is not plagiarized and all
reasonable steps have been taken to avoid plagiarism. Similarity Index as per the Turnitin
Report is____%. In case, my project is found to be plagiarized, the course teacher shall have
the full liberty to ask me to revise the Project. If I fail to comply with the instructions of the
teacher, my project may be referred to the Committee Against Use of Unfair Means and I will
comply with the decision of the said Committee.”

3 October 2023 Adarsh Jain

Bhopal, India A-2589

2023BALLB08
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................1

REVIEW OF LITERATURE....................................................................................................3

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM..................................................................................................5

HYPOTHESIS...........................................................................................................................5

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................5

RESEARCH QUESTIONS........................................................................................................6

OBJECTIVES OF STUDY........................................................................................................6

THE TORT OF BATTERY IN INDIA.....................................................................................8

TORT OF BATTERY: ELEMENTS AND DEFENCES..........................................................9

REMEDIES FROM TORT OF BATTERY............................................................................10

MAJOR CASE LAWS.............................................................................................................12

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................15

BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................16
 INTRODUCTION

"A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated
damages, and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust or
other merely equitable obligation"

-Sir John William Salmond, Salmond on the Law of Torts (1957)1

Tort law, an essential field of civil law, addresses wrongs done to people or their property and
acts as a cornerstone in the fight for justice. It is a system of laws created to offer restitution
to people who have incurred losses as a result of the wrongdoing or negligence of others. One
can discover a wide variety of illegal acts, each thoroughly defined and examined, within this
broad field of tort law. Among these, the tort of battery stands out as a unique and powerful
idea with a significant impact on both legal theory and daily life.

The tort of battery is a major subset of intentional torts. The underlying idea that people have
a natural right to personal autonomy, free from unwanted physical touch, is at the heart of
Battery. The fundamental idea behind battery is that each person's physical integrity should
be untouchable and that any deliberate interference with it is illegal. Therefore, when
someone's physical integrity is infringed by another person's activities, battery serves as a
benchmark for civil culpability.

In order to fully understand the tort of battery and the remedies available to people who have
been harmed by it, this project will conduct a thorough analysis of the tort. We will go into
detail about the requirements for intent, the type of hurtful or offensive contact, and the
significance of consent in order to demonstrate the main elements needed to support a battery
claim. We will also look at the variety of legal options available to people who have been the
victim of battery, ranging from monetary compensation to injunctive relief. Along the way,
we'll also look at potential defences that the alleged wrongdoers might use to try to clear their
names.

My main aim is to clarify the complexity of the tort of battery by going deeply into case law,
statutes, and legal precedents, providing a thorough grasp of this important area of tort law.

1
J Salmond, Salmond on the Law of Torts (12th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 1957)
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A number of literary materials, including scholarly articles, journals, novels, research papers,
and court decisions, were considered in order to finish this project. Additionally, various
websites and blogs were recommended in order to complete this homework. Following are
some of the well-known sources that were cited:

1. LAW OF TORTS BY R.K. BANGIA-2

This book is a thorough summary of all the elements of tort law. The essay details how the
legislation changed over time and how it rose to prominence today, particularly in the Indian
setting. Additionally, it thoroughly covers all the information pertaining to numerous specific
torts, their associated responsibilities, and viable remedies. The book's goal is to give students
with an all-encompassing, complete source of the necessary materials in one volume and to
function as a stand-alone work.

2. RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL – THE LAW OF TORTS BY AKSHAY

SAPRE-3

The book begins with an introduction to the Law of Torts, its nature, capacities in torts,
various types of liabilities and defences available, etc. before moving on to comparatively
harder issues, ensuring a thorough understanding of the subject. The text features teachable
and simple, yet inclusive coverage. It offers a thorough examination of many aspects of tort
law, covering crucial subjects like carelessness, defamation, nuisance, and, most
significantly, the tort of battery.

2
R Bangia, The Law of torts. (26th edn, Allahabad Law Agency 2021)
3
A Sapre, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal – The Law of Torts (29th edn, Lexis Nexis 2022)
 3. INTENTIONAL TORTS: SOME THOUGHTS ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY
BY F.A. TRIDALE-4

The article by F. A. Trindade is about 2 torts- assault and battery. It offers insights into the
legal intricacies of assault and battery as intentional torts. He talks about battery as a direct
act and Intentional act alongside discussing the essential elements. Trindade relies on a large
number of case laws for his work. This scholarly work contributes to a deeper understanding
of intentional torts and their significance within the broader context of tort law.

4. NEGLIGENT ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY HOWARD CROSBY BUTLER-5

This 2-page Journal Article by H.C. Butler discusses about his complex understanding of the
two degrees of offence – Assault and Battery. He cites several cases from United States
related to assault and battery through the text, mainly discussing the role and power of
Interstate Commerce Commission to compel connections within the boundaries of a district
as in the case Pennsylvania Company v U.S. et al (1915).

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

4
F.A. Trindade, ‘Intentional Torts: Some Thoughts on Assault and Battery’ (1982) 2(2) Oxford Journal of Legal
Studies 211,237
5
H.C. Butler, ‘Negligent Assault and Battery’ (1915) 13(7) Michigan Law Review 594,596
Battery is a tort of complex nature. Challenges may occur while establishing intent, defining
bodily contact and assessing if consent was given in a legal manner. In addition, a
fundamental difficulty in modern tort law is figuring out how well the different remedies
work to compensate battery victims.

HYPOTHESIS

A thorough examination of the tort of battery will provide more precision in defining intent,
identifying offensive or harmful contact, and determining the legality of consent. The
assessment of remedies will emphasize how critical it is to guarantee that those who have
been the victims of battery receive adequate compensation and redress for their injuries,
while also taking into account the changing standards of personal autonomy and bodily
integrity in modern society.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The doctrinal approach is the research methodology employed in this study. To supplement
and substantiate the research, data was gathered from legal sources such as case laws and
legislation. Following that, the information was thoroughly examined. The breadth of this
research is still constrained by the sources used.
 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. How did the Tort of Battery develop and how has it evolved over the years?

2. What are the complexities and practical issues that arise when proving injurious or

offensive contact and intent in battery cases, and how do these issues affect the

outcomes of such instances?

3. What are the variations and commonalities with regards to the Tort of Battery across

different legal systems such as the United States, United Kingdom and India?

4. How successfully do the existing remedies for battery, including compensatory

damages and injunctive relief, satisfy the requirements of victims? What are the

implications of recent legal developments on it?

OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

1. To examine and define the key elements of the Tort of Battery

2. To analyse the Historical evolution of Tort of Battery and recent legal developments
and case laws
3. To conduct a comparative analysis of Tort of Battery in different legal systems across
the world
4. To explore and understand various remedies available to the victims of Tort of
Battery
 HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF THE TORT OF BATTERY

Indian tort law evolved from English common law. The tort of battery has a long and
complex history that dates back centuries and is based on archaic legal ideas. Understanding
how it has evolved through time offers important insights into how it is governed today. This
investigation transports us back in time as it traces the development of the battery tort across
time.

The concept of battery can be traced back to prehistoric legal systems that existed in early
civilizations like Babylon and ancient Greece. These societies had basic notions of personal
injury and compensation for intentional harm. The formation of battery as an independent tort
became possible thanks to these early legal systems.

The concept of battery continued to evolve during the medieval period and was further
refined under English common law. During this era, the focus shifted from mere physical
harm to the wrongful intent behind the act. Essential elements of the tort of battery including
the requirement of intent were established.

Battery legislation saw tremendous growth from the 17th through the 19th centuries. Legal
experts and courts struggled to clarify the necessary purpose for battery and hone the tort's
constituent parts. Significant cases like Ashby v White (1703)6, Cole v Turner (1704)7 and
Fowler v Lanning (1789)8 served to make clear what constitutes improper contact and intent.

Battery laws underwent significant modernization and growth over the 20th century. Courts
started to acknowledge that battery might involve behaviours that infringed one's autonomy
or personal space in addition to physical touch. Due to this expanded meaning, non-physical
intrusions were deemed to be battery in famous decisions like Fisher v. Carrousel Motor
Hotel, Inc. (1967)9.

In the 21st century, battery law continues to evolve to address the challenges posed by
modern technology and changing social norms. Cases involving digital harassment,
cyberbullying, and unauthorized use of personal information have pushed the boundaries of
battery law. Courts are now tasked with adapting legal principles to new forms of harm.

6
Ashby v White (1703) 92 ER 126
7
Cole v Turner (1704) 90 ER 958.
8
Fowler v Lanning (1789) 1 QB 426
9
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel Inc., 424 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. 1967)
The historical evolution of the tort of battery reflects a continuous process of refinement and
adaptation to changing social, technological, and legal landscapes. It is evidence of the
ongoing significance of defending individual freedom and physical integrity under the law.

THE TORT OF BATTERY IN INDIA

The development of the tort of battery in India can be traced back to its British colonial
legacy. During British rule, India inherited much of its legal framework from English
common law. Consequently, the tort of battery, with its roots in English common law, was
introduced to the Indian legal system. In the early stages, Indian courts relied heavily on
English legal precedents and principles to develop and interpret the tort of battery. This led to
an initial emphasis on the core elements of battery, including intent and harmful or offensive
contact, as defined in English law.

Over time, Indian courts began to adapt the principles of battery to better suit the country's
unique legal and cultural context. Indian jurisprudence recognized that while the core
principles of battery remained consistent, the application of these principles needed to be
tailored to the country's specific needs and values.

The Indian Penal Code10, enacted in 1860, played a significant role in shaping the
development of the tort of battery. Sections such as Section 351 (Assault) of the IPC, which
criminalizes the act of assault, have a close relationship with the tort of battery. Indian courts
have often looked to the IPC for guidance in interpreting and adjudicating battery cases.

Indian courts have recently demonstrated a readiness to broaden the definition of battery to
include a wider variety of behaviours that violate bodily integrity and personal autonomy.
This covers situations in which there may be indirect physical touch, yet it still counts as
battery, including unwelcome online communication or cyberbullying.

10
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860)
The development of the tort of battery in India has also led to an expansion of available legal
remedies. Courts in India may award compensatory damages, injunctive relief, or, in severe
cases, punitive damages to victims of battery. These remedies aim to provide appropriate
redress to victims and deter potential wrongdoers.

The evolution of the battery tort in India is a reflection of a dynamic legal growth that
incorporates aspects of English common law with modifications to the legal and cultural
setting of India. Today's Indian jurisprudence is still being shaped by this change in how
battery legislation is interpreted and applied, placing a strong emphasis on victim justice and
the protection of individual rights.

TORT OF BATTERY: ELEMENTS AND DEFENCES

The tort of battery in India, like in many other jurisdictions, revolves around the fundamental
principle that individuals have the right to personal autonomy and protection from unwanted
physical contact. It is an intentional tort that deals with wrongful and intentional acts causing
harm or offensive contact to another person's body.

ELEMENTS-

To establish a claim for battery in India, certain essential elements must be proven:

1. Intent: The defendant must have intentionally and wilfully committed the act,
knowing that it would result in physical contact with the plaintiff.
2. Harmful or Offensive Contact: The contact must be harmful or offensive, as
determined by the reasonable person standard. Indian courts consider both physical
harm and offensive contact when evaluating battery claims.
3. Lack of Consent: The plaintiff must demonstrate that they did not provide valid
consent for the contact in question. Consent may be a defence if it was given freely
and with full understanding.
DEFENCES-

Below are some defences that can be raised in response to a claim of battery

1. Consent: A defence to a battery claim based on freely given, fully informed consent.
2. Self-defence: Using reasonable force to protect oneself from an immediate threat is a
legal defence against a battery accusation.
3. Defence of Others: If all the requirements are met, using reasonable force to protect
another person from harm may constitute a legal defence.

REMEDIES FROM TORT OF BATTERY

Redress for victims and the administration of justice depend on remedies. Indian law
acknowledges a number of remedies for battered victims, including:

1. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES:-
In India, compensation damages are one of the main remedies accessible to battery
victims. The purpose of compensatory damages is to make up for the harm that the
victim endured as a result of the battery. These damages may include a variety of
things, such as:
 Medical Expenses: Victims have a right to reimbursement for any medical
costs associated with injuries experienced during the battery.
 Pain and Suffering: The victim may be entitled to compensation for the mental
and emotional suffering they underwent.
 Loss of Earnings: If the battery leaves the victim unable to work or causes
them to lose money, damages may be able to make up for this.
 Loss of Consortium: If the battery has a negative effect on the victim's
marriage or family, damages for loss of consortium may be granted.
 2. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF:-
Injunctive relief is another remedy available in battery cases in India. Injunctive relief
tries to stop the culprit from engaging in additional detrimental behaviour, instead of
compensatory damages, which give victims monetary compensation. The defendant
may not speak to the victim again, either directly or indirectly, if the court issues an
injunction to prevent it. When there is a chance of continued damage or harassment,
injunctive remedy is very helpful.

3. PUNITIVE DAMAGES:-
In circumstances of severe wrongdoing or egregious negligence, Indian courts may
grant punitive damages, albeit this is uncommon. These penalties are meant to
penalize the culprit and discourage future occurrences of the same behaviour rather
than to pay the victim. Punitive damages in battery cases have a high bar for awarding
them, and they are often only given in situations where there was deliberate
misbehavior or malicious intent.

4. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION:-
In addition to civil remedies, battery in India can also lead to criminal prosecution
under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 351 of the IPC deals
with "Assault," which encompasses actions that may constitute battery. Perpetrators
convicted under this section may face imprisonment as a punishment.

The availability of remedies for the tort of battery in India underscores the legal system's
commitment to ensuring justice for victims. These remedies, including compensatory
damages, injunctive relief, and, in rare cases, punitive damages, aim to provide victims with
appropriate redress while also holding wrongdoers accountable for their actions. It is essential
for victims of battery to understand their legal rights and seek legal recourse when they have
been subjected to such harm.

MAJOR CASE LAWS

There are some major case laws that have influenced developments related to Tort of Battery.
Some of them have been understood from TORT – Cases and Questions (2004).11 These key
cases include:

1. Pratap Daji v. B.B. & C.I. Ry (1875)12

Here, the plaintiff boarded a defendant's railway vehicle, however he didn't remember
to buy a ticket. He attempted to buy a ticket at one of the carriage's stops, but was
unsuccessful. He was ordered to exit the carriage at a different location after being
questioned for his ticket, which he did not have. He declined to comply. When he
refused, the accused physically removed him from the carriage. He purchased a
lawsuit alleging the defendant used excessive force. It was decided that the defendant
could not be held accountable because he used force against a trespasser who did not
have a ticket, so he was not culpable.

2. Cole v. Turner (1704)13

The case involved a trespass and battery complaint brought before the court. The
Claimants were a husband and wife who had both allegedly been abused by the
Defendant. It was held that a person must act intentionally and wilfully to commit a
battery. It was decided that incidental touching would not qualify as battery and that
rage constituted a relevant component of the tort of battery. Simultaneously, the
presence of rage could turn even a slight touch into batteries.

3. Collins v Willcock (1984)14

It is concerned with trespass to the person focusing on battery. A police officer
wanted to question a woman about her alleged prostitution activities. The woman
decided to walk away, but the police officer was determined to stop her and grabbed
her arm to prevent her from walking away. It was held that a police officer acting
outside their legal authority cannot claim to be assaulted while attempting to arrest a
person who is entitled to self-defence. This case clarified the concept of battery and
emphasized that a police officer's duty did not automatically make every physical
contact they initiated lawful.

11
MF Grady and W Farnsworth, TORTS – Cases and Questions (3rd edn, Aspen Publishers 2019)
12
Pratab Daji vs The Bombay, Baroda And Central (1877) ILR 1 Bom 52
13
Cole v Turner [1704] 6 Mod Rep 149.
14
Collins v Wilcock (1984) 1 WLR 1172
 .
4. Bird v. Holbrook (1828)15
Bird (plaintiff) sought compensation from Holbrook (defendant) for his medical
expenditures and injuries. He was in the defendant's garden looking for his peafowl.
Unfortunately, he was shot, suffering significant injuries above the knee. The court
determined that the defendant sought to injure thieves rather than prevent stealing,
which supported the plaintiff's case. Anyone who creates a trap that has the potential
to cause injury without warning must compensate the victims for all damages. As a
result, the defendant is accountable for any harm caused by his failure to place a
warning sign.

5. Stephens v. Myers (1830)16

The plaintiff was the Chairman at a churh meeting, the defendant also sat at the same
table but there were six or seven persons between him and the plaintiff. The
defendant advanced towards the Chairman with a clenched fist saying that he
would rather pull the Chairman out of the chair than be turned out of the room, but
was stopped by people. He was held liable for assault because if he was not stopped,
he would’ve beaten Myers. Generally, assault precedes battery. Showing a clenched
fist is assault but actual striking amounts to battery

6. Scott v. Shepherd (1773)17

The defendant threw a lighted squib (firework) into a busy marketplace with lots of
people. The squib was thrown by 2 other people to protect themselves and it exploded
on Mr. Scott’s (Plaintiff’s) face. It was held that the plaintiff was injured as a result of
the defendant's direct and unlawful act of throwing and intending to launch the squib.
In this case, the other persons were not 'free agents' and tossed on the squib for their
own safety, which was understandable. The throwing on was classified as a
continuation of the defendant's intended action.

7. Leame v. Bray (1803)18

15
Bird v. Holbrook (1825) 130 Eng. Rep. 911
16
Stephens v Myers (1830) 4 C. and P. 349: 172 E.R. 735.
17
Scott v. Shepherd 96 Eng. Rep. 525 (K.B. 1773)
18
Leame v Bray (1803) 102 E.R. 724 (K.B.)
 The defendant negligently drove his carriage into the plaintiff's carriage. The
plaintiff's horse panicked, and the plaintiff jumped out of the carriage and broke his
collarbone. The defendant was driving his carriage with enough force to propel it and
it was his direct act that resulted in the damage. The court was of the opinion that
trespass was maintainable.

8. Stanley v. Powell (1891)19

The defendant was pheasant shooting when one of his pellets struck the plaintiff in the
eye, the gun was not pointed in the plaintiff’s direction and bounced off a tree and hit
the plaintiff. It was held that the act did not amount to negligence and therefore the
claim was rejected. The act also did not amount to trespass as it was not intentional or
negligent. Hence, judgement was made in favour of the defendant.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the tort of battery is a fundamental component of tort law, serving as a legal
avenue to address wrongful physical and, in some cases, non-physical contact. Through our
exploration of this tort, we have delved into its elements, defences, and legal complexities.
We've dissected the core elements of a battery claim.
The Indian legal landscape, in particular, has provided a unique perspective on the tort of
battery. Furthermore, understanding the historical evolution of the tort in India has shed light
on the progression of legal principles over time.

19
Stanley v Powell (1891 1 QB 86
The tort of battery extends its purview into the realm of remedies. We have emphasized the
importance of injunctive relief in restraining future harm, serving as a powerful tool in cases
where the risk of ongoing harm or harassment is prevalent.
Moving forward, it is imperative to recognize the importance of the tort of battery in
safeguarding individuals' rights and addressing violations of personal space, autonomy, and
bodily integrity. While it is vital to appreciate the complexities and nuances within battery
law, it is equally important to recognize the remedies available, such as compensatory
damages and injunctive relief, for victims seeking redress.

The legal landscape evolves, and the tort of battery remains a critical component of ensuring
justice and safeguarding individual rights. By delving into its intricacies and understanding
its application in various contexts, we equip ourselves with the knowledge needed to navigate
the complexities of this fundamental area of law.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

 Salmond J, Salmond on the Law of Torts (12th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 1957)
 Bangia R, The Law of torts. (26th edn, Allahabad Law Agency 2021)
 Sapre A, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal – The Law of Torts (29th edn, Lexis Nexis 2022
Statues

 The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860)

Journals

 Trindade AF, ‘Intentional Torts: Some Thoughts on Assault and Battery’ (1982) 2(2)
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies
 Butler CH, ‘Negligent Assault and Battery’ (1915) 13(7) Michigan Law Review
 Ramanathan U, ‘Tort Law in India’ (2002) Annual Survey of India Law 2001

Articles

 Vats S, ‘Assault And Battery – Definition, Elements and Difference Between Them’
(Law Corner, 2 November 2020) < https://lawcorner.in/assault-and-battery-
definition-elements-and-difference-between-them/> accessed 7 October 2022
 Rafii R, ‘Assault, Battery and International Torts’ (FindLaw, 17 August 2023) <
https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/assault-battery-
intentionaltorts.html#:~:text=But%20a%20reasonable%20person%20in,offensive
%20way%20without%20their%20consent.> accessed 7 October 2023
 Khan R, ‘Judicial Remedies Under Law Of Tort: Damages: Injunction And Specific
Restitution Of Property’ (Aligarh Muslim University)
< https://old.amu.ac.in/emp/studym/100007542.pdf> accessed 10 October 2023
 Jaiswal H, ‘Assault And Battery- In Law Of Torts’ (Legal Services India E-Journal)
< https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-5443-assault-and-battery-in-law-
of-torts.html#:~:text=Holding%20and%20Rule%3A,Yes.&text=In%20regards%20to
%20the%20intentional,liable%20for%20an%20intentional%20tort.> accessed 11
October 2023
 Menon PS, ‘Battery, Assault and Right of Defence under Torts’ (LexForti Legal
News Network, 25 November 2020) < https://lexforti.com/legal-news/battery-assault-
and-right-of-defence-under-torts/> accessed 11 October 2023