Opinion ID: 197635
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Bear Hug

Text: 19 Having disposed of United National's argument that Burke's fight precludes coverage, the applicability of the assault and battery exclusion hinges on whether Tousley's attempt to break up the fight itself constituted a battery. Since there is no definition of battery in the policy, we look to the common law definition of the term. According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, an actor is liable to another for battery if: 20 (a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and 21 (b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results. 22 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 13 (1977). As both parties acknowledge in their briefs, the disputed issue here is whether Tousley had the requisite intent to cause an offensive contact with Burke. 1 23 United National refers this Court to section 19 of the Restatement (Second), which provides that bodily contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable person's sense of personal dignity. It argues that Tousley's protective bear hug would offend a reasonable person's sense of dignity. We find this argument unpersuasive. 24 Burke testified at his deposition that, from the moment he saw Tousley about to grab him, he understood Tousley to be acting in a peacekeeping role. No reasonable person would feel their personal dignity offended by a bartender trying to prevent fighting in his establishment. This would be a different case if Tousley had hit or pushed Burke, however, it is undisputed that Tousley was merely attempting to keep Burke out of harm's way. 25 Professor Prosser offered a helpful example to distinguish between the intentional battery and negligence:If an automobile driver runs down a man in the street before him, with the desire to hit him, or with the belief that he is certain to do so, it is an intentional battery; but if he has no such desire or belief, but merely acts unreasonably in failing to guard against a risk which he should appreciate, it is negligence. 26 Prosser, Law of Torts, section 31 at 145 (4th ed.1971). In this case, Tousley's actions were negligent at most, and United National's offending dignity argument is unavailing.