<Lawyer Hat On>
Technically, any touching without permission *is* a battery, and exemplary
(punitive) damages can be awarded.  However, the touch must be intentional,
and there are some wrongs (de minimus is the Latin for it) too small to merit a
remedy in court.  [BTW, the student you describe has a perfectly good cause of
action for battery, IMNSHO, and would have done well to bring suit]  So, in
effect, any intentional non-consensual touch has the potential for giving rise to a
legal claim.  That is why giving a bottle without the parents' permission gives rise
to a good claim for battery against any nurse who does it, and any hospital
whose procedures encourage it.  I'm just hoping some parent out there who
catches them doing it will sue their pants off.  *That* will finally put an end to
routine bottles for breastfed babies.
</Lawyer Hat Off>

Rachael Hamlet

On 5 Feb 99, at 6:19, Kathy Dettwyler wrote:

> >Touching anyone without their permission (whether it is on their arm or
> >their breast) is battery.
>
> Will someone PLEASE explain this to me??  Touching someone is not battery.
> Not in any circumstance that I am aware of.  As I posted earlier, in
> sexual harrassment cases, touching -- even the kind that hurts a person --
> is FINE until/unless the person specifically tells you not to.  How does
> that square with the insistence that any kind of touching is battery??
> Can I accuse someone of battery who touches me with their arm on my arm in
> a crowded elevator?  Can I accuse someone of battery who taps me on the
> shoulder? Come on folks!
>
> Kathy Dettwyler
>