Battery, as with any trespass, must be committed intentionally. For a while it was thought that it might be sufficient for trespass to the person if there was a negligent act. However, as the tort of negligence has developed the courts have insisted that intentional harm be dealt with as a battery while negligently caused harm should be the subject of an action in negligence. In Fowler v Lanning [1959] 1 QB 426 the claimant had been shot by the defendant and had issued proceedings. The statement of claim did not specify whether the shooting was intentional or negligent and only alleged the fact of the shooting. On a procedural point Lord Diplock said:

[T]respass to the person does not lie if the injury to the claimant, although the direct consequence of the act of the defendant, was caused unintentionally and without fault on the defendant's part.

The later case of Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232, followed this approach and restricted trespass to intentional acts.