George Garton will likely be liable for battery because he intentionally blew smoke in Martin Trout’s face. In general, battery is defined as touching with the intent to harmfully or offensively contact another person. In this case, Mr. Garton’s actions were purposeful and showed intent. Also, Mr. Garton’s actions were offensive because smoke is an unpleasant substance. Therefore, the issue here is whether blowing smoke in Mr. Trout’s face is considered touching. Mr. Garton’s actions will likely be considered touching.
The touching element is satisfied even when there is no bodily contact between the defendant and the plaintiff. Fisher. It is enough to effectively touch by touching something that is in contact with the plaintiff. Fisher. In Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc., the plaintiff’s plate was taken forcibly from his hands and the defendant yelled a racial epithet at him. The court held that this action was considered touching because the effect of touching in battery is to harm another’s personal dignity while violating the person of another. Snatching something that a person is holding and yelling offensive remarks at them violates their person and causes them personal indignity.
On the other hand, the element of touching in battery does not include the mere releasing of chemical particles that contact the nose of another, even if that person finds them offensive. Marshall. In Marshall v. AT&T, Inc., the plaintiff’s coworker refused to stop wearing a perfume that the plaintiff found offensive. In this case, the defendant was not held liable for battery because the mere release of offensive chemical particles, like the coworker’s perfume, that come in contact with another do not satisfy the element of touching.
In this case, Mr. Garton’s actions will likely be considered touching because they violated Mr. Trout’s person and caused Mr. Trout personal indignity. Like the defendant in Fisher, Mr. Garton did not have any bodily contact with Mr....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document