ALL FROM LEXISNEXIS

• “So long as he intended to make that contact, and as long as that contact was one to which Mrs. Wagner has not given her consent either expressly or by implication, he committed a battery. Because battery is a tort for which the state has retained immunity, we affirm the court of appeals’ decision to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim.” (FROM OPINION —— CB PAE 23).

“The Utah case here affirmed what is sometimes called “single consent” as only the defendant intended to touch the plaintiff. resulting is offense or harm. Other courts require what is called “dual intent”: in which the plaintiff must prove that the defendant intended to offend or hard plaintiff by causing bodily contact.” (CB PAGE 23).

• Single intent: intended to have bodily contact that resulted in harm.
• Dual intent: Intended to offend or harm by causing bodily contact.

Questions about hoe the opinion references making other torts bout battery easier or more burdensome on the plaintiffs… I understand them not wanting to take judicial activism but what about this. What does the first part mean????

• Is motive irrelevant under Hudgens v. Prosper Inc. (2011 - Utah district court)?

Desire — Self defense, a solider at war