What is battery (civil)?

“A battery is a violation of an individual’s interest in freedom from intentional, unlawful, harmful or offensive unconsented contacts with his or her person.” Rains v. Super. Ct. (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 933, 938.

“The essential elements of a cause of action for battery are:

  1. The defendant touched plaintiff, or caused plaintiff to be touched, with the intent to harm or offend plaintiff;
  2. The plaintiff did not consent to the touching;
  3. The plaintiff was harmed or offended by defendant’s conduct; and
  4. A reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would have been offended by the touching.”

So v. Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 669.

“[T]he tort of battery generally is not limited to direct body-to-body contact. In fact, the commentary to the Restatement Second of Torts clearly states that the ‘[m]eaning of “contact with another’s person”’... does not require that one ‘should bring any part of his own body in contact with another’s person....[One] is liable [for battery] in this Section if [one] throws a substance, such as water, upon the other....’” Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Busby (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 876, 881.

“The element of lack of consent to the particular contact is an essential element of battery.” Rains, supra, 150 Cal.App.3d at p. 938. “As a general rule, one who consents to a touching cannot recover in an action for battery.... However, it is well-recognized a person may place conditions on the consent. If the actor exceeds the terms or conditions of the consent, the consent does not protect the actor from liability for the excessive act.” Ashcraft v. King (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 604, 609–610; 278 Cal.Rptr. 900.

Useful Rulings on Battery (Civil)

Rulings on Battery (Civil)

1-25 of 5160 results

JOYCE RODRIGUEZ VS GUARD SYSTEMS INC ET AL

Plaintiff alleges causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) premises liability, (3) negligent selection, hiring and retention of defendants’ employees and agents, (4) assault and (5) battery. The FAC includes a prayer for punitive and exemplary damages based on the assault and battery causes of action.

  • Hearing

LATEISHA RICHARD VS. JOHN BAYES ANDERSON

Assault and Battery, par. 10.) If defendant unlawfully aims at one person and hits another he is guilty of assault and battery on the party he hit, the injury being the direct, natural and probable consequence of the wrongful act. (6 C.J.S. Assault and Battery, par. 10, subd. 2.) Since the court found, in the case at bar, that the defendant was acting unlawfully and not in justifiable self-defense, the intent to commit the injury is presumed. Lopez, 112 Cal.App.2d at 318.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

N BECERRA VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Plaintiff’s complaint includes causes of action for assault and battery, IIED, negligence, negligent supervision of students, and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention of employees. 2. Demurrer Defendant, LAUSD demurs to the first cause of action for assault and battery and the fifth cause of action for negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention. a.

  • Hearing

LATEISHA RICHARD VS. JOHN BAYES ANDERSON

Assault and Battery, par. 10.) If defendant unlawfully aims at one person and hits another he is guilty of assault and battery on the party he hit, the injury being the direct, natural and probable consequence of the wrongful act. (6 C.J.S. Assault and Battery, par. 10, subd. 2.) Since the court found, in the case at bar, that the defendant was acting unlawfully and not in justifiable self-defense, the intent to commit the injury is presumed. Lopez, 112 Cal.App.2d at 318.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MATHEW JONES VS EXCEL MODULAR SCAFFOLD, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges that due to his complaints of assault and battery, and unsafe workplace conditions regarding Frank’s violent propensities, GSCS fired him. Further, GSCS ratified and condoned the assault by not taking steps io investigate the assault, terminating Plaintiff for the assault, and failing to take any measures against Frank while keeping him employed. On July 7, 2020, Frank filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff for battery, assault, IIED, negligence, and a violation of the Ralph Act.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SALVADOR CLARA AMIAL VS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC, ET AL.

First Cause of Action (Common Law Battery); Second Cause of Action (Assault). Defendant demurs on the ground that this cause of action is barred by the two year statue of limitations for assault and battery set forth in CCP § 335.1, which provides: “Within two years: An action for assault, battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ERICA SCOTT VS DEJA VU CONSULTING INC

A claim for assault and battery requires proof that Plaintiff consented to the Defendant’s conduct or touching. Plotnik v. Meihaus (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1590, 1603–1604; So v. Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 668–669. The claim for sexual battery under § 1708.5 also requires evidence that Plaintiff did not consent. It is distinct from a battery claim in that sexual battery involves an intimate body part. Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1225; Civ. Code, § 1708.5.

  • Hearing

ERICA SCOTT VS DEJA VU CONSULTING INC

A claim for assault or battery requires proof that Plaintiff did not consent to the Defendant’s conduct or touching. Plotnik v. Meihaus (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1590, 1603–1604; So v. Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 668–669. The claim for sexual battery under Cal. Civil Code § 1708.5 also requires evidence that Plaintiff did not consent. It is distinct from a battery claim in that sexual battery involves an intimate body part. Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1225; Civ.

  • Hearing

CANDIDA GALINDO-RAMOS VS STEVEN STEINSCHRIBER M.D.

In addition, Defendant cites no legal authority that a plaintiff cannot allege medical malpractice or negligence along with assault and battery. To the contrary, “it is settled law that a malpractice action can include theories other than negligence, such as battery [citation] . . . .” Herrera v. Superior Court (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 255, 261; see also Weinstock v. Eissler (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 212, 233 [allowing both negligence and battery causes of action].) Defendant cites Cobbs v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

ERICA SCOTT VS DEJA VU CONSULTING INC

A claim for assault and battery requires proof that Plaintiff consented to the Defendant’s conduct or touching. Plotnik v. Meihaus (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1590, 1603–1604; So v. Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 668–669. The claim for sexual battery under § 1708.5 also requires evidence that Plaintiff did not consent. It is distinct from a battery claim in that sexual battery involves an intimate body part. Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1225; Civ. Code, § 1708.5.

  • Hearing

KIMBERLY QUIN VS WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA INC ET AL

Assault and Battery, par 10, subd. 3.) Lopez v. Surchia (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 314, 318 (quoting trial court’s order, emphasis added). The court finds that Plaintiff has stated facts sufficient to constitute causes of action for battery and assault. CCP § 430.10(e). Defendants’ demurrer to the first and second causes of action for battery and assault is therefore overruled. 2.

  • Hearing

RICHARD KINSELLA VS JOSE JESUS FLORES, ET AL.

August 11, 2020 Allegations of the Complaint Plaintiff, Richard Kinsella filed this action against Defendants, Jose Jesus Flores and Troy Gainer for damages arising out of an assault and battery. Plaintiff’s complaint includes causes of action for general negligence, assault and battery, and premises liability.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JAMES SHIN VS JOHN SONG

Second Cause of Action – Assault and Battery An assault is a demonstration of an unlawful intent by one person to inflict immediate injury on the person of another then present, and a civil action for assault is based upon an invasion of the right of a person to live without being put in fear of personal harm. (Lowry v. Standard Oil Co. (1944) 63 Cal.App.3d 1, 6-7.) A battery is an intentional, unlawful and harmful contact by one person with the person of another.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

30-2016-00889860-CU-PO-CJC

The court is inclined to overrule defendant’s demurrer to the 1st cause of action for negligence and to sustain the demurrer to the 2nd cause of action for assault and battery with 30 days leave to amend. Negligence need not be pleaded with specificity and the allegation that defendant misused equipment is sufficient to plead defendant failed to use the skill and care of a reasonable doctor. However, there are not facts pleaded showing an assault or battery.

  • Hearing

P O VS LOS ANGELES ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

First, Plaintiff’s assault cause of action is collaterally estopped. Second, Plaintiff assault and battery claims are time-barred. Third, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to state causes of action for assault or battery. Fourth, Plaintiff’s assault and battery causes of action are not based on statute and fail against Defendant LAUSD pursuant to Government Code section 815, subdivision (a). Fifth, the Paul D.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AISPURO VS. BEN’S ASPHALT, INC

Moving Defendants contend there is no possibility of conflicting rulings from the court and the arbitrator if the claims alleged against them are ordered to arbitration because Plaintiff’s assault and battery claims arise from an independent transaction than Plaintiff’s claims stemming from his employment with Moving Defendants. Moving Defendants further contend his wrongful termination claim is not intertwined with his assault and battery claims. (See Reply, pp. 6 and 7.)

  • Hearing

RICHARD OWENS VS TYRINA LEE, ET AL.

HOA), assault, battery, premises liability and negligence 7/26/19: def LEE answered and X-C’d 1/28/20: The Court sustained demurrers to C/As 1-5 and 7 of the FAXC. Re the 4th C/A for battery, the Court ruled that the manner in which the offensive contact allegedly occurred wasn’t clearly alleged. 3/4/20: X-Ct filed her 2AXC, asserting 8 C/As v. X-D/OWENS: 1. RALPHS CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (VIOLATION OF CC §51.7) 2. INTERFERENCE WITH EXERCISE OF CIVIL RIGHTS (VIOLATION OF CC §52.1) 3. ASSAULT 4.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Richard L. Fruin

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LORETTA MILLARD VS LAWRENCE LESURE

Plaintiff alleges claims for negligence, assault and battery. Defendant demurs assault and battery claims, claiming that the facts are not sufficient to state an assault or battery cause of action and that those claims are uncertain. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 430.10. A demurrer reaches defects that appear on the face of the complaint. The court considers the allegations and matters that are subject to judicial notice. The court does not go beyond the four corners of the complaint. Saunders v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JAMES SHIN VS JOHN SONG

Moreover, as indicated above, this Court had previously ruled that Plaintiff’s third cause of action for assault and battery was adequately alleged for purposes of surviving a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

  • Hearing

XXXXXXXXXXXXX VS SEDRAK EKIMYAN ET AL

The Court notes that while the first page of the complaint lists Plaintiff’s causes of action as (1) negligence, (2) battery and (3) assault (Complaint p.1), the complaint later names battery as the first cause of action and assault as the second cause of action (Complaint p. 5 and p.6). Negligence is not mentioned as a cause of action in the body of the complaint.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

QUIST VS VISTA COVE CARE CENTER

Sustain, with leave to amend, Defendant's general demurrer to the fifth cause of action for battery and sixth cause of action for assault, on the grounds that (a) Defendant cannot be held vicariously liable for an assault/battery by a coworker; and (b) Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to indicate that Defendant engaged in positive misconduct with respect to the assault and battery. (See, Fretland v. County of Humboldt (1999) 69 Cal. App. 4th 1478, 1489-1490.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

P O VS LOS ANGELES ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Second, Plaintiff assault and battery claims are time-barred. Third, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to state causes of action for assault or battery. Fourth, Plaintiff’s assault and battery causes of action are not based on statute and fail against Defendant LAUSD pursuant to Government Code section 815, subdivision (a). Fifth, the Paul D. Coverdell Teacher Protection Act of 2001 renders Defendant Cady immune from Plaintiff’s assault and battery causes of action.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WAYNE KEVIN VERNON VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

Re-Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave To File First Amended Complaint For Damages For Violation Of Civil Rights; Assault; Battery; False Imprisonment SET FOR HEARING ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2007, LINE 8. PLAINTIFF WAYNE VERNON'S Motion For Leave To File First Amended Complaint For Damages For Violation Of Civil Rights; Assault; Battery AND False Imprisonment IS GRANTED. =(302/PJM/AB)

  • Hearing

WAYNE KEVIN VERNON VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

Re-Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave To File First Amended Complaint For Damages For Violation Of Civil Rights; Assault; Battery; False Imprisonment SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 4, 2007, LINE 7. PLAINTIFF WAYNE VERNON'S Motion For Leave To File First Amended Complaint For Damages For Violation Of Civil Rights; Assault; Battery; False Imprisonment IS CONTINUED TO JANUARY 23, 2007, ON COURT'S OWN MOTION.

  • Hearing

CHRISTINA JOHNS VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

Second Cause of Action for Civil Assault and Battery As a preliminary matter, the Court notes Plaintiff has improperly asserted her assault and battery claims in the same cause of action. Given these claims require different elements, Plaintiff must assert each claim as a separate cause of action. Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action for assault against Defendant Dr. Layne.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 207     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.