Battery occurs when the defendant's acts intentionally cause harmful or offensive contact with the victim's person. The battery in tort law, unlike criminal law, is exclusively intentional. Accidental contact, in contrast, must be analyzed under negligence or strict liability.

The battery has historically compensated not only harmful contact but also offensive contact. Hence, the tort from its earliest origin in English common law has recognized the validity of compensating psychological as well as physical injury. Indeed, by grouping offensive and harmful contact together as one tort, the tort declines to delineate what many even today would argue are at least two distinct kinds of wrongs.

Protection from unlawful contact readily appears to be a basic right worthy of recognition in tort law. Morally, such affronts are difficult to justify. From a deterrent perspective, legal redress discourages wrongful contact and violent retaliation. The historic willingness of courts to compensate for merely offensive contacts represents an extremely early acknowledgment that psychological injury is worthy of compensation. Contemporary observers of tort law may be wary of extending compensation, however small, to trivial contacts. On the other hand, where a plaintiff's interest in vindication is sufficiently significant to justify the transactional costs of a lawsuit, the risk of alternative extralegal remedies may justify the tort remedy. For example, if A spits on B, the opportunity to sue for battery may discourage a more violent retaliation for B's psychological injury.

Research some facts about batteries and the state you live in from an outside source.  Present your findings (mention your state), and cite the source in APA format.