654 A.2d 690 (1995).
One-Sentence Takeaway: Defendant’s offensive contact with object attached to or identified with plaintiff’s body is sufficient to constitute battery.
Summary: Defendant admitted touching camera that plaintiff clutched in her hand. The court concluded that the touching of camera the plaintiff was using to take pictures of the defendant was sufficient to constitute a battery. The court reasoned:
In the instant case, defendant contended that a battery did not occur because defendant did not intend to touch or injure plaintiff. Rather, defendant argued, the evidence showed that he intended to touch plaintiff’s camera, not plaintiff’s person… With this contention we must disagree. Even if this court were to accept defendant’s characterization of the incident, a battery had nonetheless occurred. The defendant failed to prove that his actions … were accidental or involuntary. Therefore, defendant’s offensive contact with an object attached to or identified with plaintiff’s body was sufficient to constitute a battery.