#5: Assault, Battery, and Chickens

http://www.rpg.net/columns/legal/legal5.phtml

Summary:

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

Go to the column for more information.

[M. J. Young]

Good overview, generally. I felt I learned something, but really it was something specifically about British law--I have not heard the ABH/GBH/GBH with intent distinctions made in American courts (although admittedly I do not practice, so it is possible that I have simply missed these). That would mean that this is an example of how such things are handled in a very specific time and place which may be useful in crafting how to handle them elsewhere. It is still a good overview, it just wasn't entirely clear that this is what it was.

I realize that writing concise articles often means you cannot say everything you wished, but I thought that it might at least have been mentioned that battery is the basis for the bulk of medical malpractice, and the reason you must sign so many "informed consent" papers before receiving medical attention. The "unlawful contact" aspect has been understood to include performing operations on the wrong part of the body, even in a case in which the patient had authorized an operation on his left ear but after he had been anaesthetized the surgeon determined that the left ear was not bad enough to require surgery but the right ear needed the procedure. Battery often involves simply touching without permission, such that that friendly slap on the back might become battery if the one doing the slap knew or should have known that the person slapped objected.

Also, assault and battery are both civil and criminal torts, and the distinction was not made here. That means, at least under the "English"/common law system, you can be charged with a crime (for which you may receive the penalties you indicated if convicted beyond a reasonable doubt), or you can be sued by the injured party (and thus forced to make compensation to the victim for his injuries if found liable by the preponderance of evidence--that is, more likely than not that you did it).

Alex, please forgive some of the detail in this post. I can hear you saying, "I know that," to some of the explanatory glosses. They are not for your sake, as I am quite sure you understand the distinctions I am making--I just didn't want the technical discussion to obscure the meaning for those not schooled in legal jargon.

I hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

[Mirkady]

Good points from M J Young. I believe that ABH and GBH are specifically English and Welsh Law offences. They are to be found in an act of parliament dating to 1861 - so for many modern day or relatively recent historical adventures it will be of direct interest. That act actually consolidated earlier legislation and so - someone might be able to tell you when - the offences themselves presumably existed before that. I agree that they are a useful example of the - often quirky - ways in which these laws develop.

I would add a small correction though - wounding is a separate offence to causing grievous bodily harm created by the same section.

[BastardToadflax]

I think it would be interesting to read more about some of the ancient laws more specifically. The concept of weirgild would be good in games, although perhaps you've already taken that up in a previous column. It's been a while since I've read any scholarship concerning medieval law, but I recall being startled that there were, at least in certain regions, laws specifically addressing the compensation that must be paid if you inadvertently stabbed someone's eye out while carrying a spear over your shoulder. You just don't create laws like that out of the blue--the complaint must been made more than once. What a crazy time!