In what circumstances will a jury find a defendant liable for battery?

In a third 1982 decision Phelps v. Superior Court (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 802, 815, 186 Cal.Rptr. 626 the court held that "damages resulting from intentional torts," including "battery," are not "subject to apportionment" based on the jury's allocation of fault among a plaintiff and defendants. The jury in Phelps found the defendants liable for the plaintiff's injuries on "theories of [both] negligence and battery." ( Id. at p. 805, 186 Cal.Rptr. 626.) The trial court declared a mistrial because of "inconsistency in the voting of jurors on issues pertaining to the comparative negligence issues" ( id. at p. 804, 186 Cal.Rptr. 626 ), specifically regarding the "apportionment of fault as between" the plaintiff and the defendants ( id. at p. 807, 186 Cal.Rptr. 626 ). The plaintiff moved for entry of "a partial interlocutory judgment" regarding the defendants' liability for battery, arguing (1) there was no inconsistency in the special verdicts regarding the

[10 Cal.5th 20]