## Facts

- Thomas Long believed someone had frightened his team of horses, causing damage to his property.
- Later, Long saw Jerome Seigel riding in an automobile and suspected Seigel was the person responsible.
- Long left his wagon, approached the automobile, and in anger placed his left hand on Seigel’s forehead and pushed Seigel’s hat back to see and identify his face.
- Long made accusatory remarks implying the culprit was a “scoundrel” and suggested Seigel or those with him might be among such people.
- Long acknowledged he might be mistaken and stated that if Seigel was not the person, Long owed him an apology.
- Seigel sued Long for civil assault and battery; the jury returned a verdict for Long.

## Issues

1. Whether placing a hand on the plaintiff’s forehead and pushing back his hat to identify him constitutes civil assault and battery.
2. Whether mistaken identity or an offer to apologize after the touching is a defense to liability for assault and battery.
3. Whether, on the undisputed evidence, the plaintiff was entitled to a directed verdict on liability for at least nominal damages.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the judgment for the defendant and remanded.
- Long’s own testimony established an intentional, nonconsensual touching sufficient to prove assault and battery under the first count.
- Mistake as to the victim’s identity did not prevent the act from being an assault and battery.
- A post-contact offer to apologize did not negate liability.
- Seigel was entitled to the general affirmative charge (directed verdict) on the first count for nominal damages.

## Legal Principles

- Any intentional, nonconsensual, offensive touching may constitute civil battery even without physical injury.
- Mistaken identity does not excuse or justify an intentional, nonconsensual touching.
- A subsequent apology or offer to apologize does not bar liability for a completed battery, though it may bear on damages.
- When liability is established by undisputed evidence and no valid defense is proved, the plaintiff is entitled to a directed verdict at least for nominal damages.

## Conclusion

The court held that Long committed an actionable battery by intentionally touching Seigel’s forehead and pushing back his hat without consent, and neither mistake nor a later offer to apologize defeated liability; Seigel was entitled to a directed verdict for nominal damages on the first count.


Seigel v. Long, 53 So. 753 (Ala. 1910)