In the case of a police officer suspected a woman of solicitation and wanted to question her but she turned to go. He held her arm to prevent her from going but she scratched him instead. The lower court found the woman guilty but on appeal, the police officer was found to be liable for the battery for holding her arm although there was no injury on her part. Even if consent is initially present; battery will still lie if the result contemplated by the person who gave consent is not the same as the actual result of the force applied.
In the case of Nash v Sheen  CLY 3726, the Court held that the act of a hairdresser in applying tone-rinse to the claimant, which resulted in a change of hair color and rash to the customer when the latter specifically asked for a permanent amounted to battery although there was no intention to do harm. Applying the principles of the aforementioned cases to the present case, Gracie could be held liable for battery because when she deliberately hit Brenda, as a joke, with the ping-pong ball on the head, she applied direct force to the latter with intent and without Brenda’ s consent.
As to employer’ s liability, the Old Castle Bank Centre may be held liable for tort under for not providing suitable and safe devices to its employees, if the allegation by Gracie that the heavy headset, which she had to wear all the time at work, contributed to her chronic headaches and neck pain was true. Under the said law, an employer can be made liable for providing defective or unsafe equipment to its employee, if such equipment caused or contributed to cause the employee’ s injury (Owen 2001 61).
The definition of “ equipment” as defined in the case of as anything that the employer has furnished to the employee for the purpose of having it used by the employee in the course of his work under the employment and even includes, in this case, a “ flagstone. ”
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples