defendant hair dresser and requested for a perm. Instead of a perm, the defendant gave the plaintiff an unwanted tone rinse or hair dye which caused rashes on the head of the plaintiff. It was held that the defendant was liable for battery. R v Day (1845) 1 Cox CC 207 The defendant slit the complainant's clothes with a knife, and as the complainant tried to stop it by reaching for the knife, his hand was cut. Parke, B held that it was battery to use a knife to slit the clothes which a person was wearing and although the complainant's hand was cut in reaching for the knife, it was immaterial as this does not subtract from the offence. In other words, there were two acts of battery; the slitting of the clothes and the cut on the complainant's hand. Involuntary Contact As a general rule, involuntary contact, or infliction of force over which a person has no control is not battery and may therefore be excused from liability. In Gibbons v Pepper (1695) 91 ER 922, The defendant was riding his horse. The horse, in sudden fright ran away with him on it. He called to the plaintiff pedestrian to get out of the way and upon his failure to do so, the horse ran him over against the defendant's will. The plaintiff sued for assault and battery. The court held: per curiam, that the defendant was liable and judgment was given for the plaintiff. In the court's opinion; if I ride upon a horse and another person whips the horse so that he runs away with me and runs over any other person, he who whipped the horse is guilty and not me. But if I, by spurring the horse, was the cause of the accident, then I am guilty. In the same manner, if A takes the hand of B and with it strikes C; A is the true trespasser and not B. See Leame v Bray (1803)" 102 ER 724. Battery Need