When A touches B intentionally, but B is unaware of it, what is the likely outcome regarding battery?

In the context of battery, liability typically hinges on whether there was an intentional and unlawful touching of another person. Battery is defined as the intentional infliction of harmful or offensive contact with another person. The key element here is the intent and the action of touching, rather than the awareness of the person being touched.

Option A suggests that B cannot claim battery without awareness, which aligns with the understanding that awareness is an important factor in recognizing the act of battery. However, it is important to note that awareness is not a strict requirement for battery to occur. The essence of battery lies in the intentional contact itself, regardless of whether the victim was aware of it at the time.

In contrast, option B implies that A is always liable for battery irrespective of B’s awareness. While A may be liable for battery due to the intentional act of touching, the understanding of the contact's offensive nature may be enhanced if B was aware.

Option C states that B can claim battery only if harmed, which oversimplifies the requirements for battery. Battery does not necessarily require physical harm; it can also encompass offensive contact.

Option D indicates that A is immune to battery claims, which is inaccurate, as intentional contact can result in liability.

In summary, while awareness affects the