Unknown
I want to make sure I brief the correct case. "Addis v.
Did the plaintiff consent—expressly or impliedly—to the physical contact in question, and if so, does that consent bar a battery claim? If the contact exceeded the scope of implied consent, does it constitute a battery?
Battery is an intentional, unpermitted contact that is harmful or offensive. Consent is a complete defense to battery when the contact is within the scope of the consent. Consent may be implied from conduct, custom, or the circumstances (e.g., participation in an activity that customarily involves certain contacts). Implied consent does not extend to contacts that materially exceed the rules, customs, or foreseeable risks inherent in the activity.
Unknown pending confirmation of the specific case. In implied-consent cases, courts typically hold that contacts inherent in the activity are consented to, while contacts outside the rules or customs (or done with reckless disregard or intent to harm) may constitute battery.
This case (once properly identified) would illustrate how implied consent operates as a defense to battery, particularly in sports and social settings. It helps students learn to: (1) identify when participation implies consent, (2) define the scope of that consent by reference to rules/customs, and (3) distinguish ordinary, inherent contact from excessive or rule-violating conduct that can still constitute battery.