Tort is concerned with civil wrongs caused by individuals and other legal entities. Tort has two main objectives. One is to offer compensation to the victims of civil wrongs for the loss, damage or injury that they have suffered. The most common remedy for tortious conduct is money, referred to as damages. Tort also acts as a deterrent, and aims to reduce the harm caused by making the tortfeasor responsible for providing a remedy.

Another type of remedy is an injunction, where the court orders a person not to do something, for example, not to publish an article in a newspaper. It may also be used to compel a person to do something, although this is less common.

There are three main elements to a tort claim. First, it must be proved that there was a wrongful act or omission (failure to act) by the defendant. Second, it must be proved that the claimant suffered loss, damage or injury as a result. Third, it must be proved that the defendant had a duty to act in a certain way but didn't, meaning he was at fault.

The most litigated tort is the general tort of negligence, where A's careless act or omission causes damage to B. Other torts include defamation, where A suffers as a result of B's spoken or published lies; trespass, where B wrongfully goes onto A's land; and nuisance, where B disturbs A's enjoyment and use of his land (for example, by allowing dogs or cats to run freely there).

In certain cases, such as defective products that cause harm to consumers, strict liability is used. This means that the defendant will be found liable regardless of fault.

There are some overlaps between tort law and criminal law, and sometimes the same set of facts may lead to both a criminal prosecution and an action in tort. A famous example of this was the US case of The People v. Orenthal James Simpson. This criminal trial involved the former American football star and actor O. J. Simpson, and was heard at the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California. Simpson was charged with two counts of murder following the deaths of his ex wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman in June 1994. Simpson was eventually acquitted. However, the Brown and Goldman families then sued Simpson for damages in a civil suit. The jury unanimously found there was a preponderance of evidence to find Simpson liable for damages in the wrongful death of Goldman and battery of Brown.

The standard of proof in civil cases, the preponderance of the evidence, is much lower than in criminal cases, the facts of which have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Another difference between civil law and criminal law are the consequences of a finding of liability and a finding of guilt. Damages are awarded in tort cases, and are meant to compensate the injured party for wrongs caused, and to deter others from acting negligently.

A finding of guilt can subject the defendant to a number of different punishments, including imprisonment and fines (a sum of money exacted as a penalty by a court of law or other authority). Some jurisdictions are also able to award punitive damages, which can be extremely high, in addition to compensatory damages, where the tort in question has been particularly serious.

Research Methodology
Statement Of Problem
Analyze the definition and scope of Assault and Battery in India.

Objective

• To enhance knowledge about Assault and Battery
• To study case laws related to Assault and Battery.
• To explain what are the remedies against Assault and Battery.
• To explain the defences which can be pleaded by the defendant.

Methodology
The method used for research work in the present project is the doctrinal method of data collection.

Assault

Meaning and Defination: An assault is a threat or attempt to do a corporeal hurt to another, coupled with an apparent physical ability and intention to do the act. Actual contact isn't necessary in an assault. But it is not every threat, where there is no actual personal violence that constitutes an assault; there must, in all cases, be means of carrying that threat into effect.[1] Any gesture calculated to excite, in the party threatened, a reasonable apprehension that the party threatening intends immediately to offer violence, or, in the language of the Indian Penal Code, is about to use criminal force to the person threatened, constitute, if coupled with a present ability to carry such intention into execution, an assault in law.[2]

The intention as well as the act makes an assault. Therefore, if one strikes upon the hand, or arm, or breast in discourse, it is no assault, there being no intention to assault; but if one, intending to assault, strikes at another and misses him, this is an assault; so if he holds up his hand against another, in a threatening manner, and says nothing, it is an assault.[3]

The menacing attitude and hostile purpose go to make the assault unlawful, e.g. presenting a loaded pistol at any one,[4] or pointing or brandishing a weapon at another with the intention of using it,[5] or riding after a person and obliging him to seek shelter to avoid being beaten. Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which the party threatening uses at the time may either give to his gestures such a meaning as may make them amount to an assault, or, on the other hand, may prevent them from being an assault.

For instance, if A laid his hands on his sword, and said to Z, If it were not assize time, I would not take such language from you. This was held not to be an assault on the ground that the words showed that A did not intend then and there to offer violence to Z. here, there was the menacing gesture, showing in itself a intention to use violence, there was the present ability to use violence, but there were also words which would prevent the person threatened from reasonably apprehending that the person threatening was really then and there about to use violence.

Elements of Assault:
Three elements must be established in order to establish tortious assault: first, the plaintiff apprehended immediate physical contact, second, the plaintiff had reasonable apprehension (the requisite state of mind) and third, the defendant's act of interference was intentional (the defendant intended the resulting apprehension). But intent for purposes of civil assault can be either general or specific. Specific intent means that when the defendant acted, he or she intended to cause apprehension of a harmful or unwanted contact. General intent means that the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the action would put someone in apprehension of a harmful or unwanted contact.

While the law varies by jurisdiction, contact is often defined as harmful if it objectively intends to injure, disfigure, impair, or cause pain.

The act is deemed offensive if it would offend a reasonable person's sense of personal dignity.

While imminence is judged objectively and varies widely on the facts, it generally suggests there is little to no opportunity for intervening acts.

Lastly, the state of apprehension should be differentiated from the general state of fear, as apprehension requires only that the person be aware of the imminence of the harmful or offensive act.

There are some cases which would illustrate the concept better. They are mentioned under.

Cullison v. Medley[6]
Facts:
Plaintiff Cullison met 16-year-old Sandy Medley in a grocery store parking lot, invited her to have a soda with him and to come to his home to talk further. A few hours later he was awoken by a knock at his door. He was confronted by Sandy Medley, her father Ernest, her brother, brother-in-law, and mother. Ernest had a revolver in a holster strapped to his thigh. Sandy called him a pervert and her mother berated him. Ernest kept grabbing and shaking the gun while still in the holster and threatening to jump astraddle of him if he did not leave Sandy alone.

Although no one ever touched Cullison, he feared he was about to be shot because Ernest kept grabbing the gun as if to draw it from the holster while threatening him. As a result of this incident, Cullison sought psychological help to deal with nervousness, depression, sleeplessness, inability to concentrate, and impotency. He sued the Medleys for assault, among other torts. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on all claims, the appeals court affirmed, and the Indiana Supreme Court reversed on the assault count.

Issue:
Whether threatening language coupled with a holstered pistol rises to the level of assault.

Held:
Yes, it was an assault. Assault occurs when one intentionally creates the reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact in another. It is a touching of the mind, if not the body, and as such, the damages which are recoverable are for mental trauma and distress. It is assault to shake a fist under another's nose, to aim or strike at him with a weapon or to hold it in a threatening position, or to surround him with a display of force.

Additionally, the apprehension must be one that would be aroused in the mind of a reasonable person. In this case, a jury could reasonably conclude that the Medleys intended to frighten Cullison by surrounding him in his trailer and verbally threatening him with bodily harm while one of them was armed with a holstered revolver. Accordingly, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment on the assault count.

Tuberville v. Savage[7]
Facts: Tuberville put his hand upon his sword and said:
If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you. Savage sued Tuberville for assault.

Issue: What are the elements of the tort of assault?

Holding and Rule: To be liable for assault at least one of the following must be present: 1. an act intending to cause harmful control to another person, or imminent apprehension, or 2. a third person put in apprehension if he believes the person can do damage. An assault exists even if the other party can defend against the action and the action is not inevitable. Mere threats of future harm are insufficient.

In this case the court held that the declaration of Tuberville was that he would not assault Savage at that point in time. To commit an assault there must be intention followed by an act. An assault is present if the fear is reasonable. The court held that in this case there was clearly no intention of assault.

Disposition: For Tuberville.

Notes: Threats of future harm are insufficient to establish assault. Conditional threats may suffice where the defendant has no privilege to assert them.

Bavisetti Venkat Surya Rao v. Nandipati Muthayya[8]:

Plaintiff owed a certain amount to the defendant which he was unable to pay. The defendant, in order to collect the amount thought to visit plaintiff's house and sell some movables to recoup the amount. The defendant called a goldsmith to evaluate the value of gold in the house of plaintiff, but the person standing at the time of such evaluation near the house borrowed the amount from another to give it to the defendant, and after the defendant had taken the amount, the plaintiff sued him for assault.

It was held that since the defendants, after the arrival of the Goldsmith said nothing and did nothing and the threat of use of force by the goldsmith to the plaintiff was too remote a possibility to have put the plaintiff in fear of immediate or instant violence, there was no assault.

Battery:

Meaning and Defination:
Battery is the intentional and direct application of any physical force to the person of another. It is the actual striking of another person, or touching him in a rude, angry, revengeful, or insolent manner.

In Cole v. Turner[9], HOLT, C.J. declared: First, that the least touching of another in anger is a battery. Secondly, if the one touches the other gently, it will be no battery. Thirdly, if any of them use violence against the other, to force his way in a rude inordinate manner, it will be a battery. ROBERT GOLF, L.J. redefined battery as meaning an intentional physical contact which was not generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life.[10]This definition was accepted by the House of Lords in Wainwright v. Home Office.[11]

A battery includes an assault which briefly stated is an overt act evidencing an immediate intention to commit a battery. It is mainly distinguishable from an assault in the fact that physical contact is necessary to accomplish it. It cannot mean merely an injury inflicted by an instrument held in the hand, but includes all cases where a party is struck by any missile thrown by another. It doesn't matter whether the force is applied directly to the human body itself or to anything coming in contact with it. In order to establish the tort of battery, the plaintiff must however prove that the force used was without any justification.[12]

Thus, to throw water at a person is an assault; if any drops fall upon him it is a battery.[13] So, riding a horse at a person is an assault, and riding it against him is battery. Pulling away a chair, as a practical joke, away from a person who is about to sit on it, is assault until he reaches the floor; then it is battery the minute he comes in contact with the floor. The term assault is commonly used to induce battery. But every lying on of hands is not a battery. The party's intention must be considered. Touching a person, for instance, for merely calling him isn't a battery.

In Stephens v. Myers[14], the plaintiff was the chairman of a parish meeting. The defendant having been very vociferous, a motion was made and carried by a large majority that he should be turned out.

Upon this, the defendant said he would rather pull the chairman out of the chair, than be turned out of the room, and immediately advanced with his fist clenched towards him; he was thereupon stopped by the churchwarden, who sat next but one to the chairman, at a time when he was not near enough for any blow, he might have mediated to reach the plaintiff; but the witness said that it seemed to them that he was advancing with an intention to strike the chairman. The jury found for the plaintiff with one shilling damages.

Battery requires actual contact with the body of another person so a seizing and laying hold of a person so as to restrain him; spitting in the face; throwing over a chair; or carriage in which another person is sitting; throwing water over a person; striking a horse so that it bolts and throws its rider; taking a person by the collar; causing another to be medically examined against his/her will; are all held to amount to battery.

Where the plaintiff, who had purchased a ticket for a seat at a cinema show, was forcibly turned out of his seat by the direction of his manager, who was acting under a mistaken belief that the plaintiff had not paid for his seat, it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover substantial damages for assault and battery. The purchaser of a ticket for a seat at a theatre or other similar entertainment has a right to stay and witness the whole of the performance, provided he behaves properly and complies with the rules of the management.[15] A civil action lies for assault, and criminal proceedings may also be taken against the wrongdoer.

The fact that the wrongdoer has been fined by a criminal court for the assault is no bar to a civil action against him for damages. The previous conviction of the wrongdoer in a criminal court is no evidence of assault. The factum of the assault must be tried in a civil court, which is not bound by conviction or acquittal in criminal proceedings. A plea of guilty in a criminal court may, but a verdict of conviction cannot, be considered in evidence in a civil court.

Garratt v. Dailey[16]
Facts: Five year old Brian Dailey (D) pulled a chair out from under Ruth Garratt just as she was about to sit causing her to fall and break her hip. Garratt brought suit for personal injuries and alleged that Dailey had acted deliberately. The trial court entered judgment for Dailey and found that he had not intended to injure Garratt. The court nevertheless made a finding of $11,000 in damages in case the judgment was overturned on appeal. Dailey appealed.

Issues:

1. In regards to the intentional tort of battery, is the element of intent satisfied if the defendant knows with a substantial certainty that his act will result in a harmful or offensive contact?
2. Can a five year old child be liable for an intentional tort?

Holding and Rule:

1. Yes. In regards to the intentional tort of battery, the element of intent is satisfied if the defendant knows with a substantial certainty that his act will result in a harmful or offensive contact.
2. Yes. A five year old child can be liable for an intentional tort.

A minor is liable just as any other person when he has committed an intentional tort with force.

Elements of the Tort of Battery: Under the Restatement of Torts an actor who commits a direct or indirect act which is the legal cause of a harmful contact with another is liable if:

1. The act is done with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension thereof to the other or a third person, and
2. The contact is not consented to by the other or the other's consent thereto is procured by fraud or duress, and
   
3. The contact is not otherwise privileged.
   

Intent requires that the act must be done for the purpose of causing the contact or apprehension or with knowledge on the part of the actor that such contact or apprehension is substantially certain to be produced. A battery would be established if a party acts with substantial certainty that a result will occur.

The mere absence of any intent to injure, play a prank on, or embarrass the plaintiff, or to commit an assault and battery on her, would not absolve the defendant of liability if in fact he had such knowledge. If Garratt has proven to the satisfaction of the trial court that Dailey moved the chair while she was in the act of sitting down, his action would patently have been for the purpose or with the intent of causing her bodily contact with the ground, and she would be entitled to a judgment against him for the resulting damages.

Talmage v. Smith [17]
Facts:
Talmage and several other children were playing on the roofs of sheds on Smith's property. Smith ordered the children to get down and threw a stick at one of the boys. The stick missed its intended target and struck Talmage in the eye. Talmage lost all sight in the eye and sued for battery to recover for personal injuries.

Evidence was offered showing that Smith threw the stick intending to frighten (i.e. assault) but not hit a different boy. The trial court entered judgment for Talmage and Smith appealed on the grounds that he did not have the intent to hit Talmage and was therefore not liable for battery.

Issue:
If an actor intends to inflict an intentional tort upon one party and accidentally harms a second party, can the actor be held liable to the second party for battery?

Holding and Rule:
Yes. If an actor intends to inflict an intentional tort upon one party and accidentally harms a second party, the actor can be held liable to the second party for battery under the doctrine of transferred intent.

If an actor intends an act against a party and that act impacts upon another the actor is liable for the injuries suffered. The fact that the injury resulted to a party other than was intended does not relieve the defendant from responsibility. Smith will not be relieved of liability because he intended to injure someone else.

Disposition: Affirmed.

Transferred Intent:
The transferred intent torts under common law are: assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels. If an actor has the intent to commit any of the transferred intent torts, the actor will be liable for all other transferred intent torts that result from that act. The actor's liability extends to all parties harmed, not merely the original intended victim.

Pratap Daji vs. B.B. & C.I. Ry[18].:
Here the plaintiff entered in a carriage of defendant's railway but had forgotten to purchase a ticket for his travel. On one of the stops of the carriage, he tried to purchase the ticket but didn't get any. At another place, he was asked for the ticket which he didn't have and therefore was asked to get out of the carriage. He refused to do so. On his refusal, the defendant used force to get him out of the carriage. He bought an action against the defendant for use of force. It was held that the defendant was not liable, as he used force against the person who was not having a ticket and therefore was a trespasser, and therefore he couldn't be held liable.

Damages in Assault and Battery Indian Tort Cases
When it comes to injuries, civil cases involving assault and battery can run the gamut of seriousness. Remember, no actual physical injury is required in most states, so lawsuits for assault and battery can vary widely in terms of damage awards. In cases where there was no harm done (or very little), filing a lawsuit may not always be worth it in the long run, even though an assault or battery may have technically taken place.

On the other hand, when an assault and battery incident requires hospitalization and extensive medical attention, a personal injury lawsuit may be the best way for the victim to get reimbursement for medical bills and compensation for things like pain and suffering.[19]

Defenses in Assault and Battery Tort Cases in Indian context
A personal injury lawsuit won't be successful if the person being accused of assault or battery has a valid legal excuse for their conduct. Here is a look at some of the most common defenses to a personal injury lawsuit where assault or battery (or both) is alleged.

Consent. A defendant might say that the victim agreed to the possibility of being hurt. This defense arises most often in intentional tort lawsuits in cases involving contact sports, paintball-style games, and similar activities. A plaintiff who files a lawsuit in these cases may have a hard time winning if he or she consented to certain physical contact -- getting hit in a game of football, for example -- even if the contact ended up causing harm.[20]

Privilege. A police officer who used force while arresting someone might try to assert the defense of privilege. For example, if a police officer injured someone while making an arrest, a lawsuit for assault and battery probably won't be successful as long as the officer used a reasonable and appropriate amount of physical force while making the arrest.[21]

Self-defense[22]
Self-defense is probably the most common defense used in assault and battery cases. In order to establish self-defense, an accused must generally show:
a threat of unlawful force or harm against them;
a real, honest perceived fear of harm to themselves (there must be a reasonable basis for this perceived fear);
no harm or provocation on their part; and
there was no reasonable chance of retreating or escaping the situation.

Example A: Adam is confronted by Bill, a large, imposing stranger, who immediately begins shouting threats at him and lunging at him with fists raised in a highly threatening manner. Adam is terrified, strikes Bill, and gets away through the nearest exit at his first available opportunity. Adam may be able to successfully argue that he acted only in self-defense under such circumstances.

Example B: Adam runs into Bill and gets into an argument. Bill insults and belittles Adam, at which point Adam insults Bill and threatens to beat him up. Bill then strikes Adam, and Adam retaliates in kind. It would be more difficult for Adam to establish self-defense under these circumstances than those in Example A, because Adam took part in escalating and provoking the fight by threatening Bill.

The doctrine of self-defense has a number of limitations in addition to those outlined above. Simply because someone acts in self-defense does not mean that all bets are off as far as the amount of force that can be used to defend one's self. The force used in self-defense must be reasonable when compared to the threat posed by the victim. Also, even if all the elements outlined above are met, an individual defending himself may still be found guilty of assault/battery if the victim was physically no match for them in the first place (this could be due to size, age, etc.)

Defense of Others
This defense is very similar to that of self-defense, with the only difference being that the individual must have an honest and real perceived fear of harm to another person. The limitations that apply to self-defense apply similarly to defending others, and the accused must have had reasonable grounds for their perceived fear in order to establish this defense

Defense of Property
A defendant in an assault/battery case may be able to claim that he acted only in defense of his or her property against being invaded or illegally withheld. It is important to note that the availability and extent of this defense varies from state to state, however. Where available, this defense generally allows for an individual to use reasonable force in defense of their property, particularly where a person's own home is involved.

The law is more divided on the issue of defending personal property. Generally, if there is some sort of dispute over personal property, the owner is not entitled to use force to retrieve it. On the other hand, if property has been stolen directly from an individual (e.g. by a pickpocket, or purse-snatcher), they may have the right to use reasonable force to recover such property

Statutory authority
Acts which can be considered as trespass but it won't if it is legally justified. That is, if the law permits some authorities to carry out the task of search and seizures then in that condition there can be no trespass against the authorities. Like in the case of Elias vs. Pasmore[4]in this the police lawfully enter at plaintiff's house, to arrest a man. From there they also took some documents some of which were unlawfully taken. It was held that entering the house couldn't constitute trespass but taking away documents constitutes trespass to goods and therefore the police were held liable.

Comparison chart
 

Assault versus Battery comparison chart
	Assault	Battery
Justification	Self defense or defense	Self defense, defense, necessity
Common Law	Intentional tort	Intentional tort (Negligent tort in Australia)
Important aspect	Threat of violence is enough to constitute assault; no physical contact is necessary	Physical contact is mandatory
Purpose	To threaten	To cause harm
Nature of crime	Not necessarily physical	Definitely physical

Remedies In Tort Law By Indian Law Courts

A victim of a tort may have several possible remedies available under tort laws. There are three basic types of remedies in tort law: Legal Remedies (damages), Restitutionary Remedies, and Equitable Remedies.

Each of these is discussed briefly below:
Legal Remedies for Torts:
Also known as damages, these are monetary payments made by the defendant for the purpose of compensating the victim for their injuries, losses, and pain/suffering. These are calculated according to the victim's losses rather than the tortfeasor's gains. Punitive damages may be added in some types of tort claims. Claimants that win a judgment in court are awarded pain and suffering damages.

Restitutionary Remedies:
These are also meant to restore the plaintiff to a position of wholeness, as close as possible to their state before the tort occurred.

These can include:
Restitutionary damages:
These are similar to damages, except that they are calculated based on the tortfeasor's gain rather than the plaintiff's losses.

Replevin:
Replevin allows the victim to recover personal property that they may have lost due to the tort. For example, they may recover property that was stolen. Replevin can be coupled with legal damages in some cases.

Ejectment:
This is where the court ejects a person who is wrongfully staying on real property owned by the plaintiff. This is common in instances of continuing trespass.

Property Lien:
If the defendant cannot afford to pay damages, a judge may place a lien on their real property, sell the property, and forward the proceeds to the tort victim.
Equitable Remedies: These are available where monetary damages will not adequately restore the victim to wholeness.

These can include:
Temporary Restraining Order:
Victims of physical harm or harassment may obtain a restraining order, which prevents the defendant from making contact with or coming near to the plaintiff.

Temporary or Permanent Injunction:
An injunction may either prohibit unlawful activity by the defendant or it may order them to take affirmative steps. Injunctions are common in trespassing and nuisance tort claims.

As in any lawsuit, the defendant may raise any available defenses to these types of remedies. [23]

Conclusion
Through this comprehensive research project we could conclude that though assault and battery seem to be similar, but are two totally different concepts the main difference being physical contact.

The main elements of assault are first, the plaintiff apprehended immediate physical contact, second, the plaintiff had reasonable apprehension and third, the defendant's act of interference was intentional while elements for battery are first the act is done with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension thereof to the other or a third person, and second the contact is not consented to by the other or the other's consent thereto is procured by fraud or duress, and third the contact is not otherwise privileged.

The defendant can use certain defenses laid down in several cases such as self-defense, consent, statutory authority etc. Indian court provides remedies in cases of assault and battery which are damages, restitution and injunctions etc. With passing time we expect the tort law to develop more, as people In India are becoming more aware about their personal rights.

Bibliography
Books:

• Blacks Law Dictionary by Henry Black 1951, 4th edition.
• The Law of Torts by Dr RK Bangia 2018 ,25th edition
• Winfield and Jolowicz on Torts 17th edition, 2006 By WVH Rogers

Papers:

• Larson, Aaron (17 August 2016). "Personal Injury Claims for Assault and Battery". ExpertLaw. Retrieved
• VerSteeg, Russ (2016). "Consent in Sports & Recreational Activities". DePaul Journal of Sports Law & Contemporary Problems. 12 (1): 1-39. Retrieved 21 June 2017
• Larson, Aaron (17 August 2016). "Personal Injury Claims for Assault and Battery". ExpertLaw. Retrieved 21 June 2017.
• Simmons, Kenneth W. (2008). "Self-Defense: Reasonable Beliefs or Reasonable Self-Control" (PDF). New Criminal Law Review. II(I): 51-90. Retrieved 21 June 2017

End-Notes:

1. Stephens v. Meyers, (1830) 4 C & P 349 : 34 RR 458
2. Per Arnould, C.J. in A.C. Cama v. H. F. Morgan, (1864) 1 BHC 205, 206.
3. Tuberville v. Savage, (1669) 1 Mod 3.
4. R. v. James, (1844) 1 C & K 530; Osborn v. Verich, (1858) 1 F and F 317.
5. Genner v. Sparkes, (1704) 1 Sak 79.
6. 570 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. 1991).
7. 1 Mod. Rep. 3, 86 Eng. Rep. 684 (1669).
8. BVS Rao vs Nandipati Muthayya AIR 1964 AP 382
9. (1704) 6 Mod, 149.
10. Collins v. Wilcock, (1984) 3 All ER 374, p. 378.
11. (2004) 4 All ER 969, p. 974, (para 9) (HL).
12. Jai Bhagwan v. Suman Devi, (2011) 185 DLT 29.
13. Pursell v. Horn, (1832) 3 N & P 564, 8 A & E 602
14. (1830) 4 C & P 349 : 34 RR 811.
15. Hurst v. Picture Theatres, Ltd. (1915) 1 KB 1 : 111 LT 973 : 30 TLR 642.
16. 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1955).
17. 101 Mich. 370, 45 Am. St. Rep. 414, 59 N.W. 656 (Mich. 1894).
18. PratapDaji vs BB&CC railway 1875 1 Bom 52
19. Larson, Aaron (17 August 2016). "Personal Injury Claims for Assault and Battery". ExpertLaw. Retrieved 21 June 2017
20. VerSteeg, Russ (2016). "Consent in Sports & Recreational Activities". DePaul Journal of Sports Law & Contemporary Problems. 12 (1): 1-39. Retrieved 21 June 2017
21. Larson, Aaron (17 August 2016). "Personal Injury Claims for Assault and Battery". ExpertLaw. Retrieved 21 June 2017.
22. Simmons, Kenneth W. (2008). "Self-Defense: Reasonable Beliefs or Reasonable Self-Control" (PDF). New Criminal Law Review. II(I): 51-90. Retrieved 21 June 2017
23. LawTeacher. November 2013. Tort Law Remedies Lecture. [online]. Available from: https://www.lawteacher.net/modules/tort-law/remedies/lecture.php?vref=1 [Accessed 27 November 2018].