An ordinance requires smoking and nonsmoking sections; a smoker sits in the smoking section and continues smoking despite a nonsmoker's allergy, causing a severe reaction. In a battery action, which question is NOT an issue?

• A. Was the smoker's conduct unreasonable under the circumstances?
• B. Did the smoker intend to make a harmful contact?
• C. Was the contact harmful or offensive?
• D. Did the smoker's motive influence the contact?

Answer: (A)

The essential concept here is what proves battery. A battery claim turns on two things: (1) there was intentional contact with the plaintiff, and (2) the contact was harmful or offensive. The question of whether conduct was reasonable or reasonable under the circumstances isn’t part of proving battery; reasonableness is a standard more associated with negligence, not with the intentional tort of battery.

In the scenario, the smoker intentionally smoked in a space designated for smoking and continued despite the nonsmoker’s allergy, causing a severe reaction. That shows intent to make contact (the act of smoking in close proximity) and creates a contact that is harmful or offensive to the nonsmoker. The focus isn’t on whether the act was reasonable, but on the existence of intentional contact and its harmful/offensive nature.

The other inquiries line up with battery elements: whether there was an intent to make contact (not necessarily to harm, but to contact), and whether the contact itself was harmful or offensive. Motives behind the contact don’t affect liability in battery in the same way, but the critical battery framework remains the presence of intentional contact that is harmful or offensive.