Battery
Garrat v. Dailey
- Facts- Plaintiff and her sister and the defendant are in the sister’s backyard. The defendant moves and sits in a chair. The plaintiff goes to sit in that same chair. The defendant attempts to push the chair back to catch plaintiff, but fails. Plaintiff falls and suffers $11,000 in damages.
- History: Trial, appeal, s. Court
- Issue: did the defendant act with intent to harm or knowledge? Does this warrant a new trial or judgement?
- Holding: Unclear, and no.
- Rule: Intent to harm or knowledge that action would cause harm is necessary for tort.
- Rationale: Battery requires intent of harm or knowledge of likelihood.
Wagner v. State
- Facts: Giese, a mentally disabled person under supervision of the state, threw plaintiff on the ground.
- Issue: Is intent to harm requisite for battery?
- Holding: No
- Rationale: What about an unpetitioned kiss? That is not harmful, however, it is undesirable.
- Rule: Battery- intent to make harmful or offensive contact.
Wallace v. Rosen
- Facts: Defendant touched/ pushed plaintiff, during fire drill. Plaintiff fell and suffered damages.
- History: Trial court jury ruled for Rosen; Wallace appealled.
- Issue: Did the trial court err in submitting the defendant’s instructions to the jury that battery does not require intent?
- Holding: No
- Rule: Battery must involve intent, in rude, insolent, angry, or harmful manner.
- Result: Affirmed.
Fisher v. Carrousel Mo. Hotel Inc.
- Facts: Employee of defendant snatches plate from plaintiff and shouts, negroes can’t be served here.
- History: Trial court jury gave a verdict for plaintiff, however, judges overruled for defendant. Appellate court affirmed.
- Issue: Did the trial court err in overruling the verdict? Is physical contact necessary for battery?
- Holding: Yes, No.
- Rule: Contact with physical body is not requisite for battery.
- Term: Judgement notwithstanding the verdict.
No comments:
Post a Comment