legal debate - tort of battery

I don't agree with your proposition that the tort of battery can only be established when the defendant directly touches the body of the plaintiff with his own body.

I quote Glofcheski, Tort Law in Hong Kong, p.500: "The requirement of directness with derives from the this tort's origin as a trespass action should not be taken too literally. For instance, pouring water over the plaintiff, throwing an object at the plaintiff, or pulling a chair from beneath the plaintiff are sufficiently direct for this purpose."

I have the following cases for you:

Scott v Shepherd (1773) 2 W Bl892: It was considered sufficiently direct where the D threw a lighted squib of gunpowder onto the market stall of Y, whereupon Y ti save himself threw it away where it landed on the stall of R who also threw it away, finally resulting in injury to P.

Livingstone v Ministry of Defence [1984] N.I. 356: A gunshot hitting somebody is sufficiently direct. In this sense the pint of lager seems pretty much the same thing.

It is helpful to envisage what your learned friend will argue.

There's not much he can argue about directness.

I guess he will raise the defence of property. One may use reasonable force to defend land or goods in one's possession against any person committing a trespass to property. The pub will probably argue the consent is withdrawn the moment the person fell asleep and snorted, because he was allowed into the pub not for the purpose of sleeping. Therefore, the pub will argue that it was the person who committed trespass to the property and that the manager is entitled to throw lager at him.

However, I think this is a weak argument since force is not reasonable. The case Pilkinghorn v Wright [1845] 8 QB 187 also stated that where the entry of taking by the plaintiff has not been forcible, the use of force by D in expelling P should be preceded by a request that P leave.