CA Q 18 Response

CA Q 18. What is the specific legal contention that the plaintiff is asserting on this appeal? (i.e., Obviously, the plaintiff is claiming that the trial judge ruled erroneously in dismissing her claim for "battery" against Brian Dailey. BUT, the question here is WHAT SPECIFIC LEGAL REASON does the plaintiff offer in support of her argument that the trial judge erred?)

On appeal, the plaintiff argued "that Brian's action in moving the chair constituted a battery." Indeed, this is how the court begins its legal analysis (in the sixth paragraph of the edited opinion). BUT, this is merely a CONCLUSORY statement. It does not really tell us anything about the LEGAL REASON to support such a conclusion. SO, the analysis at this point needs to go further.

Look again at your response to Question 5, supra, wherein the court stated that: "a battery is the intentional infliction of a harmful bodily contact upon another."

Since it is OBVIOUS under these facts that the plaintiff has suffered a "harmful bodily contact" from her fall, the primary focus of the analysis in this case needs to be on whether Brian (under his own version of the facts as found by the trial court) "intentionally inflicted" that harmful contact upon the plaintiff.