8. If the plaintiff asserts a claim against the guard based upon battery, will the plaintiff prevail?

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 upon 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) harmful or offensive bodily contact or (ii) imminent apprehension by the plaintiff of a harmful or offensive bodily 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.

When a person has reasonable grounds to believe that he is being, or is about to be, attacked, he may use such force as is reasonably necessary for protection against the potential injury. Invoking self-defense requires first, a determination that the privilege exists, and second, whether the defendant was privileged to use the degree of force that she did, in fact, use. A defendant has the burden to prove that he reasonably believed there was a real threat of harmful or offensive bodily contact or threatened confinement or imprisonment. The defendant may only use the degree of force necessary to prevent that harm. The defendant will be liable for any force used that was beyond what was necessary.

If a defendant is entitled to use force in his self-defense, and he does so, but he injures an innocent bystander, the use of force as to the third party will also be privileged, assuming the defendant was not negligent.

C is correct. The plaintiff will not prevail in a battery claim against the guard because he was properly acting in self-defense. A defense to the intentional tort of battery is the privilege of self-defense, which applies when the defendant reasonably believed he was about to suffer harmful or offensive bodily contact. The defendant is privileged to use the degree of force necessary to defend against such threatened harm. In this case, the robber shot a gun at the guard, and in his own defense, the guard returned fire with his gun. This was a reasonable act of self-defense, and the fact that an innocent bystander (the plaintiff) was injured, does not negate his self-defense shield. This is because self-defense will transfer to a third party as long as the defendant did not act deliberately or negligently.

A is incorrect. This answer choice incorrectly applies the facts and improperly invokes a doctrine of criminal law — accomplice liability — in the context of an intentional tort case.

B is incorrect. Even though the guard's intent to shoot the robber transferred to the plaintiff, this is not dispositive here. As explained above, the guard acted reasonably in self-defense when he shot at the robber, and that privilege will extend to the plaintiff, who was injured accidentally during the exchange.

D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The plaintiff will not prevail, but not because the guard lacked the intent to shoot the plaintiff. In fact, when a defendant commits a battery against someone and injures a third party, he may be liable under the theory of transferred intent. Nevertheless, this guard-defendant will not be liable because he was acting reasonably within the privilege of self-defense in returning fire to the robber, which will extend to the plaintiff's injuries.