Dr. Mark Smith

Mitch Reese and friends were drinking in a bar. Brenda Hale and her friends were drinking at a nearby table. On the way to the restroom, Hale passed by Reese's table, and he patted her leg with his hand. Hale did not react and continued to the restroom. On the way back to her table, however, she grabbed a pitcher of beer from a nearby table and dumped it on Reese. Reese immediately left the bar and entered his car to go home to change clothes. On the way out of the parking lot, he collided with a car driven by Andy Rearson, causing minor damage.

Reese paid for Rearson's damages, and now wants Hale to reimburse him for the costs. He claims that he was so flustered and embarrassed by her pouring the beer over him that he could not concentrate on his driving, and, therefore, she is responsible for the accident. Furthermore, he is filing a suit against her for battery, arguing that her pouring beer on him fit the definitions of battery.

Hale has filed a countersuit against Reese for battery.

Georgia Code, section 120, defines battery as ". . . a harmful or offensive touching of another that is intentional, and without consent or legal privilege."

Section 134 defines transfer of intent as ". . . when one intends or commits an action against one person and unintentionally causes another person to be harmfully or offensively touched. In that case, the actor is liable to that other person."

 

Arsenault v. Brown 673 GA (1991)

Terrel Arsenault and Randy Brown were students in the same history class at Southern College. The class met three days a week. During the first six weeks of class, Arsenault teased Brown about his speech impediment. Before class one day, Brown struck Arsenault in the hallway outside of class. Arsenault sued for battery. The court ruled in Arsenault's favor, asserting that the two-day time lapse between the teasing the striking was too long for the action to be justified. Judge William Blevins wrote for the court: "Everyone has the right to protect themselves from immediate threats of harm, even if that harm is verbal. However, in this case, it is not clear that the defendant was defending himself against a threat. The length of time between the confrontation and defendant’s striking the plaintiff weakens the self-defense argument."

Willingham v. Patterson 209 GA (1980)

Steve Willingham was leaving a football stadium after a night game. While walking through a poorly lit area to his car, he was approached by Ernie Patterson, who had taunted Steve at the game. Willingham ran the remaining 100 yards to his car; Patterson pursued him for about 50 feet before stopping and walking away. After getting into his car, Willingham ran a stop sign and crashed into another vehicle. Willingham sued Patterson for punitive damages, claiming that he was so shaken by the taunting that his judgment was impaired, causing the accident. The court ruled in Patterson's favor. Judge Orrin Hunter wrote for the court: "Although Willingham might have been shaken by the incident, because Patterson never touched him, we cannot hold Patterson at fault. If Patterson had actually touched--or even verbally threatened--Willingham, there might have been grounds for an award because a physical assault can be seen as causing undue distress. However, because the incident involved only a verbal confrontation, there can be no transfer of wrongful intent."

Roth v. Weir 472 GA (1988)

Ingrid Blackmon went to her next-door neighbor's house to complain about their son's throwing trash into her yard. She became embroiled in a heated and obscene exchange on the front porch with Brian Weir, the homeowner and father of Josh, the son. Weir pushed Blackmon down the front steps, causing her to cut her shin severely. Blackmon attempted to drive herself to the hospital but, on the way, rearended a car driven by Sarah Roth. The court demanded that Weir pay damages to Roth. The court ruled that Weir's actions "transferred the wrongful intent," to Roth and that Blackmon's accident was a direct cause of Weir's actions. Judge James Nason asserted that "There is a direct cause-and-effect relation here. Weir directly touched Blackmon, causing her fall. Furthermore, she drove her car as a direct result of his actions, and, because of the proximity of the two incidents, her mental state was also a result of his actions."

Walker v. McCord 671 GA (1970)

Allen Walker and Charles McCord worked at the same machine shop. According to witness both McCord and Walker were boisterous and aggressive, although they had never actually caused any problems at work. Employees universally agreed that neither would actually attack anyone on the job. However, these same employees also agreed that the two could create a tense atmosphere at the shop. On June 9, Walker was in a particularly aggressive mood, and approached McCord, placing his hand on his shoulder, pretending to prepare to strike him. McCord immediately reacted, striking Walker with a small metal rod, inflicting two broken ribs. Walker sued for medical payments and battery. Judge Sara Betts dismissed the case, however, arguing that McCord's action was a gut response to a perceived threat. She elaborated: "A person is entitled to protect themselves against both real and imagined threats. The plaintiff did not have to pose a real threat, only a perceived one. Furthermore, the atmosphere created in the machine shop by the two parties lent itself to an incident like this. In such cases, one must always consider the context of the alleged battery."