A lot of laws regarding battery and such contain the words “without consent”. I have investigated domestic violence cases where we determined a party actually consented to certain acts.
But how far does consent go? We’ve all heard stories about a couple having rough sex and one of them dies. The other is in a legal trick bag because one cannot consent to have another kill you.
But what if death is not involved?
Let’s say John wants to borrow money from Big Louie. Louie insists John sign a legal, notarized contract saying if he doesn’t pay the money back in a timely manner he gives Louie consent and permission to smash his teeth in, break his arms and legs, and gouge out his eyes.
John fails to pay back the money and Louie smashes his teeth in, breaks his arms and legs, and gouges out his eyes.
When the authorities investigate the matter is Louie off the hook because he has a legal document from John granting him permission to batter him?
I don’t have a definitive answer to the OP, though I’d be shocked if the contract absolved Louie. I do want to raise one important point, though.
I believe there needs to be a distinction between consent at the time of the battery and contractual consent as in the case of the OP. The classic example of the former is a boxing match, where no one gets prosecuted for pounding the other guy bloody. Unless there’s some exception for boxing matches written into the law, I would have to think the difference is that the guy is agreeing to the terms at the time. In the case of the OP, it’s just something he agreed to at the time of the loan, but at the time of the battery it is not being done consensually.
A lawyer relative once told me that if you touch someone in any manner without their consent it technically counts as battery. If that’s correct, then clearly consent is fundamental to battery, and again the issue in the OP is that there was no consent at the time of the actual battery.
I’m guessing that this contract wouldn’t be considered void due to being against public policy. In other words, you can’t legally enter into a contract where you can be injured like that as a result.
Combat sports are regulated by the states and allowed within the auspices of those regulators. Fighting outside of the regulations leaves fighters subject to legal action. If one were to die as a result of a fight it would be a case of murder. The law doesn’t usually prosecute when fights result in minor injuries although possibly for disturbing the peace or some other violation.
It depends, and I’m sure varies by locality. Around here there’s nothing inherently illegal about fighting so long as it’s consensual. I was once shown a video by an officer. Two guys are fighting. One of them falls to the ground and curls up. The other guy starts kicking him. The officer paused the video and said, “and this is where it becomes criminal.”
YMMV depending on jurisdiction but this is basically horseshit. Battery generally has to include the element of intentionally causing bodily harm to someone or committing an act where a reasonable person would believe the act would cause bodily harm.
Tapping someone on the shoulder to get their attention is not battery. Even if it for some reason it hurt them the actor had no intention of hurting them and no reasonable person would believe tapping someone on the shoulder would cause bodily harm.
Under common law and US law, you can’t enter into an illegal agreement. Or rather, you CAN, but the courts will not enforce any contract whose purpose is to achieve an illegal end, which functionally means you aren’t entering a legally binding agreement at all.
A DV case I got dispatched to was vaguely related to this. A neighbor called and reported the man next door was in his backyard punching his wife. Turned out the couple were actually sparring with gloves, mouth & groin guards, etc… After separated interviews with them and other neighbors we learned they did this for years and it had nothing to do with a domestic argument or anything like that. Weird, but consensual. The neighbor who called it in was new to the block but could somewhat see over the fence and thought the guy was battering his wife.
Where does it say I can’t enter into a contract to get my ass kicked?
Let’s say I want to know how it feels like to get the shit pounded out of me. I don’t borrow any money from Big Louie, I pay him to beat me up. I sign a contract expressing my consent, absolving him of any criminal or civil wrongdoing, and the terms of payment. The contract says he can use any nonlethal force he wants and cause any damage he wants as long as he doesn’t kill me.
People can verbally consent to harm, why can’t they do it in writting?
Yeah. The belief that just touching someone is a battery falls into the same category of “possession is 9/10 the law”, or that you are 10% at fault in a traffic accident just for being there. Widely believed, but completely false.
I’m not saying you couldn’t sign a contact that allows someone else to hit you, which could be used to show that them hitting you was not an illegal assault but a consensual act.
So you could sign a contract saying you will let me punch you in the face for $1,000,000. If you sign the contract, let me punch you, take the money, and then try to sue me in civil court or press criminal charges - you will very likely lose.
However, the contact wouldn’t let me use the courts to COMPELL you to let me hit you. If we sign the contract, then when I prepare to punch you you say you changed your mind, I would not be able to sue you for breech of contract and demand that the court force you to let me punch you.
And this highlights one of the distinctions between a combat sport like boxing or MMA, and a street brawl. Legitimate sports will have a referee or the like, whose job is to stop the fight if it begins to go outside the bounds of the agreed rules.
Not sure I buy that. I mean, sure, kicking a guy on the ground is criminal, but to know if it was criminal before that you’d have to know why they were fighting. Two people fighting might be consensual sport combat or it might be an aggressor and a defender.
Like, if I have a public disagreement with someone and he says “let’s settle this like men” and I put my fists up, did I consent to that fight? No! I’m putting my fists up to defend myself against a guy who I have a reasonable belief is about to attack me!
My guess would be that a judge would see exactly what Big Louie is trying to pull and rule that this is an illegal contract ergo all aspects of it are not just void, but never applicable in the first place. You don’t get to sue your hitman for your money back if he never killed the person you put the hit on, and I don’t think this case would be much different. But IANAL.
And this is something I as a LEO have to carefully observe upon arrival and determine after interviewing witnesses: was this mutual combat or was this a battery. Mutual combat can be a minor charge of disorderly conduct while battery can be a felony.
But we’re not talking about murder here. I very specifically and deliberately mentioned nonlethal force and not being allowed to kill me.
Can you legally consent to get the shit kicked out of you?
My wife can verbally consent to having her buttocks slapped very hard while I is a lovin’ her from behind. What law prevents me from putting consent in writing an enforceable contract allowing her to smash me in the face with her fists? If I can legally consent to that why would it being in a contract be illegal? Either I can consent to it or not.