A medical technician decided to play a joke on a patient during a routine checkup. While pretending to check the patient’s reflexes, the technician intentionally pricked the patient’s arm with a needle without the patient’s permission but caused no physical injury. The patient, outraged by the technician’s behavior, contacts an attorney. Which legal claim against the technician is most appropriate under these circumstances?
Assault, because the technician intentionally acted in a way that caused the patient to fear imminent harm.
False imprisonment, because the technician confined the patient without lawful authority.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress, because the technician's conduct would outrage a reasonable person.
Battery, because the technician intentionally made offensive contact with the patient.
The correct answer is based on the definition of battery, which occurs when a person intentionally causes harmful or offensive contact with another without consent. Here, the technician intentionally pricked the patient with a needle, constituting offensive contact under the law, even if no physical injury resulted.
The incorrect options can be analyzed as follows: (1) Assault requires the victim to fear imminent harmful or offensive contact, which isn't evident because the patient did not anticipate the technician's actions. (2) Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct that goes beyond all possible bounds of decency; the prankish behavior described here falls short of that standard. (3) False imprisonment requires the unlawful confinement of a person without legal authority, which does not apply to these facts since no confinement occurred.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is battery in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What distinguishes battery from assault?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Can a medical professional be held liable for battery?