Question

Ravi, at a local market, was involved in an argument with Mohan over a disputed transaction. In the heat of the argument, Ravi suddenly pushed Mohan forcefully, causing Mohan to stumble backward and fall. Mohan suffered a minor injury to his back as a result of the fall. Mohan believes that Ravi’s action was an intentional physical contact that resulted in harm, and he is considering suing Ravi for the tort of battery.
Which of the following statements is correct regarding the tort of battery in this case?

• A. Ravi’s action of pushing Mohan constitutes battery, as it was an intentional and direct application of physical force.
• B. Ravi is not liable for battery because the physical contact was not severe enough to cause significant injury.
• C. The tort of battery requires that the defendant’s action must cause permanent injury, which is not the case here.
• D. Ravi is not liable for battery because his action was a part of self-defense act, even if there was no immediate threat to his safety.

Hint:

Battery in tort law requires intentional physical contact without consent—not necessarily serious injury.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Battery is the intentional, direct application of physical force by one party onto another without legal excuse. The severity or permanence of any resulting injury is irrelevant. The critical elements are the intentional act and the resultant harmful or offensive physical contact.
Option (A) is valid, as Ravi's intentional push constitutes direct physical contact. Option (B) is invalid; the degree of injury does not define battery. Option (C) is invalid; battery does not necessitate permanent injury. Option (D) is invalid; self-defense is contingent on an immediate threat, which is not demonstrated.