19. In an action for battery brought by the pedestrian against the bystander, will the pedestrian prevail?

The general rule is that if someone sees a complete stranger being attacked or in danger, they have the privilege of using reasonable force to intervene.

The modern view is that if a person makes a reasonable mistake about the need for force, including the degree of danger to a third party, the defense-of-others defense may still apply. But all courts agree that the defendant's belief in the need to use force to defend another must at least be reasonable. So, if the defendant makes a negligent mistake about whether the third party is in physical danger (i.e., unreasonably believes the third party is in danger), or about whether the defendant's proposed physical contact will help avoid danger, the defendant will not be able to invoke the defense-of-others defense.

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.

B is correct. The pedestrian will prevail in a battery claim against the bystander because it was unreasonable for the bystander to believe that the pedestrian was in danger. For a defendant who mistakenly believed a third party was in danger, in order to nevertheless invoke the privilege of defense of others, the mistake must have been reasonable. If the defendant's belief that the third party was in danger was unreasonable, he will not be able to be shielded by this defense. In this case, the pedestrian was in a crosswalk as a speeding car was headed in that direction. However, the facts state that the car «was obviously coming to a stop at the traffic light,» which means that it was unreasonable for the bystander to think that the pedestrian was in danger. In other words, a normal person in the bystander's situation would not have made this mistake. By pushing the pedestrian onto the sidewalk, the bystander was acting unreasonably and will be liable for battery by offensively touching the pedestrian.

A is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The bystander will be liable, but not because he had a duty to warn the pedestrian. The bystander's belief that the pedestrian was in danger was entirely unreasonable, which means there was no need to warn at all, let alone push the pedestrian onto the sidewalk. Thus, the bystander is liable for his unreasonable mistake as to the pedestrian's safety, not because he had alternative options available, such as a warning.

C is incorrect. The bystander remains liable for battery absent some privilege, which he does not have. His mistake was unreasonable, rendering him liable for damages suffered by the pedestrian. The actions by the driver, even if they are causally related to the events that occurred, do not shield the bystander from liability for his unreasonable conduct.

D is incorrect. Even if the bystander had admirable motives in pushing the pedestrian, his mistake about the danger still must be reasonable for him to benefit from the privilege. His mistake was unreasonable, as explained above, which means he remains liable for his offensive contact to the pedestrian.