When can a defendant be liable for battery even without direct contact?

A defendant can be liable for battery even without direct contact when their conduct is particularly blameworthy. This principle recognizes that battery can occur through indirect actions that lead to harmful or offensive contact. For example, if someone sets a trap that ultimately harms another person, they could be found liable for battery because their actions demonstrated a reckless disregard for the safety of others, even though there was no physical contact initiated by the defendant.

The reasoning behind this is that battery is not solely dependent on physical touch. It encompasses the idea of intending to cause harmful or offensive contact, or causing such contact through action that one could foresee would lead to such harm. Therefore, the nature of the defendant's conduct plays a crucial role in establishing liability, particularly in cases involving negligence or malicious intent where direct contact may not be required to substantiate a claim of battery.

In the context of the other choices, they do not align with the legal principles surrounding battery. The absence of harm does not negate liability; consent would serve as a legal defense against a battery claim; and a contractual obligation does not inherently imply an intent to cause offensive or harmful contact that would rise to the level of battery. Thus, the focus on the blameworthiness of the conduct captures the essence of liability in cases