Generally, all the states acknowledge the right to accept information about an individual’s medical condition, the treatment options, the risks related to treatments and prognosis, whether it is by common law or express statute. The information should be in simple language words that can be easily understood and enough amounts like a patient who is able to make an “informed” decision about his/her healthcare. When the patient accepted this information, any permission for treatment provided will be assumed to be an “informed consent.” A physician who is unable to get informed consent for a non-emergency treatment may be accused of civil and/or criminal offense which includes battery, for the unlawful touching of the plaintiff’s person.
Toxic torts or exposure to toxic gases, are basically entail claims of negligence or strict liability. But during the recent years, the claims for the tort of toxic battery were successful in many courts. The intent was needed to comprise a tortuous battery may not be an intent to cause injury or harm but there may be an intent to perform the act which will completely cause the injury. The companies that manufacture the chemicals known to be unstable or known to result in complete human contact are weak to such claims. They can be sued for unlawful disposal of toxic or poisonous materials and tort of toxic battery when the individuals are injured by leached chemicals or smoke in the air, water, or ground. The purpose was not to injure others but to dispose the material in an unlawful way or place. This is a good sample of gross negligence or recklessness so egregious to include the requisite purpose to commit battery under the law.
The toxic battery cases started to appear in late 1990. During the early case of Gulden v. Crown Zellerbach Corp (9th Circuit, 1989), the court stated that in exposing the workers to PCBs, which are known carcinogens and poisonous agents, at 500 times the optimum exposure which are permitted under the EPA standards could involve a battery. The tort of toxic battery becomes the element in many of the tobacco and breast implant cases. In such cases, they usually entail several plaintiffs and multiple defendants, and may later become class action lawsuits, just in case there is a spread of exposure to injury or harm.
Most of the sports injuries which are in competitive and contact sports are considered accidental. But, possible causes of action were found in cases where sports athletes applied extreme force n their techniques, to the injury of other athletes. Thus, the notorious fights among the hockey players led in many multi-party claims for battery.
The most persistent torts and crimes that involve domestic relations are those that involve charges of battery. This is true not only to spousal relations but also in cases of child abuse. Sexual offenses against other people, which include children, are crimes and batteries, as well.
Unluckily, spousal batteries usually become cases which involve severe physical injury and property damage. There are some courts that allow batteries to the “extended personality,” made in the presence of the presence of the victims because there is an intentional destruction of the items personal to the spouse are common n cases that involve highly emotionally-charged marital discord. Furthermore, in criminal battery cases, the authorities acknowledge the victims may not like to file lawsuits for scared of future injury or retaliation, particularly in spousal battery. Hence, the prosecution may continue even if the spousal victim is forced to testify or become an adverse witness for the state.