T1B

trev wrote: 3. She has a bruise on her ass that will heal in about a week.

mamamustanger wrote:Stupid!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Moving Sale wrote:Acually its not. The equivalent defense for battery is consent (like in a boxing match) but she appearantly didn't sign a consent form that involved her getting hit in the ass with a golf club by a drunken loser.

Moving Sale wrote:It was beyond the scope of any implied consent

Moving Sale wrote:I'm a lawyer from the very state this suit was filed in and you think you somehow know more about california law.

Moving Sale wrote: This will end in a sealed settlement or some other fashion where the battery defenses are never adjudicated.

mvscal wrote:$33k is less than a tenth of $500K...idiot.

Carson wrote:Did you attend the Earl Scheib Law School or something?

Moving Sale wrote:Go ahead and point out where I'm wrong you smoke blowing ant-brained freak show.

California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)

1300. Battery—Essential Factual Elements

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] committed a battery. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:


1. That [name of defendant] [touched [name of plaintiff]] [or] [caused [name of plaintiff] to be touched] with the intent to harm or offend [him/her];

2. That [name of plaintiff] did not consent to the touching; and

3. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed [or offended] by [name of defendant]’s conduct; [and]

[4. That a reasonable person in [name of plaintiff]’s situation would have been offended by the touching.]

•“A battery is any intentional, unlawful and harmful contact by one person with the person of another… A harmful contact, intentionally done is the essence of a battery. A contact is ‘unlawful’ if it is unconsented to.” (Ashcraft v. King (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 604, 611 [278 Cal.Rptr. 900], internal citations omitted.)
•“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. Superior Court (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 933, 938 [198 Cal.Rptr. 249].)
•“Although it is not incorrect to say that battery is an unlawful touching, . . . it is redundant to use ‘unlawful’ in defining battery in a jury instruction, and may be misleading to do so without informing the jury what would make the conduct unlawful.” (Barouh v. Haberman (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 40, 45 [31 Cal.Rptr.2d 259], internal citation omitted.)
•“The crimes of assault and battery are intentional torts. In the perpetration of such crimes negligence is not involved. As between the guilty aggressor and the person attacked the former may not shield himself behind the charge that his victim may have been guilty of contributory negligence, for such a plea is unavailable to him.” (Bartosh v. Banning (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 378, 385 [59 Cal.Rptr. 382].)
•Restatement Second of Torts, section 13 provides:

An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if


(a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and

(b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.

•“ ‘It has long been established, both in tort and criminal law, that “the least touching” may constitute battery. In other words, force against the person is enough; it need not be violent or severe, it need not cause bodily harm or even pain, and it need not leave any mark.’ ” (People v. Mansfield (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 82, 88 [245 Cal.Rptr. 800], internal citations omitted.)