13. Will the plaintiff prevail on the battery claim?

Liability for an intentional tort requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant acted, with intent, and his action caused the result that gave rise to liability. To establish a battery claim, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive bodily contact to the plaintiff's person. The defendant is liable not only for direct contact, but also indirect contact, i.e., it will be sufficient if he sets in motion a force that brings about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff's person.

Intent for battery can be established by showing the defendant's intent to cause EITHER: (i) a harmful or offensive bodily contact or (ii) an imminent apprehension by the plaintiff of a harmful or offensive bodily contact, which may be established by transferred intent to commit an assault. Thus, a defendant acting with the intent to commit an assault (i.e., the defendant intended merely to put the plaintiff in fear of an imminent harmful or offensive contact), and ended up causing harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff, has committed a battery.

A plaintiff is said to have assumed the risk of certain harm if she has voluntarily consented to take her chances that the harm will occur. Assumption of risk is a defense to negligence and strict liability cases, whereas consent is the applicable similar defense in intentional tort cases. Consent will not be a defense in the context of an athletic competition if the defendant intentionally attacked or injured the plaintiff, or if he makes contact that goes beyond what is impliedly consented to.

C is correct. The plaintiff will not prevail on a battery claim UNLESS she can prove that the defendant had the requisite intent. Intent for a battery claim may be shown by either the defendant's intent to cause harmful or offensive bodily contact OR the intent to commit an assault. When the defendant intends to commit an assault, i.e., he intended only to put the plaintiff in FEAR of imminent or harmful contact, this will transfer to satisfy the intent element of battery. The actual contact need not be done personally by the defendant as long as the defendant set into motion an action with the purpose or knowledge to a substantial certainty that the offensive or harmful touching would result.

In this case, the defendant cut too sharply in front of the plaintiff. To prevail, the plaintiff must show that the defendant cut in front of her with the intent to EITHER cause a harmful or offensive contact OR that the defendant intended to place the plaintiff in apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact by moving sharply in front of her (which would prove intent to commit assault and transfers to the subsequent battery). Without showing one of these two types of intent, the plaintiff will not prevail.

A is incorrect. As explained above, intent for a battery claim requires more than mere recklessness. The plaintiff must show that the defendant intended to either commit an assault or cause harmful or offensive bodily contact, neither of which would be satisfied by reckless conduct alone.

B is incorrect. A finding by the State Racetrack Commission that the defendant committed a foul in violation of the racing rules is not enough to establish a battery per se. Such evidence may be introduced and considered in determining whether the defendant had the requisite intent, but it would not necessarily be dispositive.

D is incorrect. This answer is only partially correct. The plaintiff will not prevail unless she can show the requisite intent. Assumption of the risk is a defense to negligence or strict liability. In this case, the plaintiff is bringing a battery claim. Even if the defendant would have an assumption of the risk defense to negligence, it would not prevent the plaintiff from bringing and winning on a battery claim.

Note: The applicable defense to intentional torts is consent, not assumption of the risk. Although this answer choice is not about consent, it should be noted that consent is not a defense when a defendant injures a plaintiff in an athletic competition in a way that exceeds the scope of contact impliedly consented to.