44. Does the injured hiker have an actionable battery claim against the hunter?

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 with 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 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 intent to commit an assault (i.e., if the defendant intended merely to put the plaintiff in fear of an imminent harmful or offensive contact, it is sufficient for a battery claim, regardless of whether the defendant intended to make actual contact). The doctrine of transferred intent does apply in battery cases. Thus, a defendant acting with the intent to commit an assault, which causes harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff, has committed a battery.

A is correct. The hunter saw a deer in the forest and shot at it, hoping to kill it. Although the doctrine of transferred intent does apply to battery cases, it does not apply here because the hunter was attempting to shoot an animal, which is a legal act. The intent cannot be transferred because the intent to shoot the deer was not the intent to commit a tort in the first place. Therefore, the hiker does not have an actionable claim against the hunter.

B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The hiker does not have an actionable battery claim against the hunter, but not because the hunter did not make direct physical contact with the hiker. A battery claim may be actionable even where a defendant makes indirect contact with the plaintiff's person, meaning he sets in motion a force that brings about the harmful or offensive contact. Nevertheless, the hiker's battery claim will not succeed because the element of intent is not satisfied, as explained above.

C is incorrect. It is true that firing a bullet that hits a person could give rise to a battery claim, however, this alone is not enough. There must also be intent by the defendant, not just harmful touching. Because the hunter did not intend to cause harmful contact to the plaintiff or intend to commit a tort upon another individual that could transfer to the hiker, the battery claim will fail.

D is incorrect. To be liable for a battery, the defendant must have had the intent through his act to inflict a harmful or offensive touching on another. Although the hunter intentionally shot the rifle, he did not intentionally direct it at the hiker, or at another individual in a tortious manner. Rather, he shot at a deer, which was a legal, non-tortious act. The intent required here would be an intent to make harmful or offensive contact with the hiker..