Issue: to offend Stanley. Gurdy’s actions and words were

Issue:     Do
Gurdy’s actions against Stanley amount to battery?

Rule:      A
person that, while acting volitionally and consciously, acts in such a manner
intended to cause harmful or offense to another shall be considered to have
committed an act of battery unless the person was acting in sleep, or under the
influence of hypnosis or similar influence.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Analysis: When
Gurdy went into Stanley’s bakery, he was aware of actions that would offend
Stanley owing to the sign that Stanley had put on the entrance to his
establishment. Therefore, when he grabbed the bagel from Stanley’s tongs, he
was fully aware that his action would offend Stanley. Although Gurdy was
irritable since he had not taken his coffee, he was not acting in sleep or
under the influence of hypnosis are any other mind-controlling mechanism.

Therefore, considering the information that Gurdy had about Stanley and things
that would offend him, Gurdy’s actions were intended to offend Stanley.

Gurdy’s actions and
words were also not reflexive. An action is considered reflexive if it is a
normal and expected reaction to a certain situation or event. Gurdy’s actions
were not reflexive because, although the line was moving slowly, everyone in
the establishment was calm waiting for their turn without confronting Stanley.

Waiting calmly was therefore the expected behavior in this situation.

Conclusion: Yes,
Gurdy’s actions against Stanley qualify to be termed as battery.