What does the majority rule in battery cases state about intent?

In battery cases, the majority rule regarding intent stipulates that the defendant must only intend to cause contact, not necessarily harmful or offensive contact. This means that if the defendant acts with the purpose of making contact with another person, that is sufficient to establish the intent aspect of battery. It does not require that the contact be harmful or result any injury; it’s enough that the defendant had the intention to engage in the action that led to the contact.

This principle is significant in tort law as it recognizes that the act of touching or coming into contact with another person can be actionable even if the actor did not have the specific intent to cause harm. Essentially, the focus is on the intention to perform the act resulting in contact rather than the motivation behind it. Therefore, it broadens the scope of what constitutes battery since one can be liable for battery even without malicious intent or without intending to harm the other party.

In summary, the emphasis on the intent to cause contact aligns with the majority view on battery, underscoring that liability can arise from the action of contact itself, regardless of the consequences or the harm intended.