Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuittortplaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealtrialverdictjury instructions
tortdefendantappealverdict

Related Cases

Miller v. Warren, 182 W.Va. 560, 390 S.E.2d 207
View Case »
Whitley v. Andersen, 37 Colo.App. 486, 551 P.2d 1083
View Case »
Isaacs v. Powell, 267 So.2d 864
View Case »
Parness v. City of Tempe, 123 Ariz. 460, 600 P.2d 764
View Case »
Kivland v. Columbia Orthopaedic Group, LLP, 331 S.W.3d 299
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

White v. Muniz, 999 P.2d 814, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 1944

Facts

In October 1993, Barbara White placed her 83-year-old grandmother, Helen Everly, in an assisted living facility where Everly exhibited erratic and aggressive behavior. On November 21, 1993, while attempting to change Everly's diaper, caregiver Sherry Lynn Muniz was struck by Everly. Following this incident, Muniz filed a lawsuit alleging assault and battery against Everly and negligence against White. The trial court's jury instructions regarding the intent required for an intentional tort became a point of contention.

In October of 1993, Barbara White placed her eighty-three year-old grandmother, Helen Everly, in an assisted living facility, the Beatrice Hover Personal Care Center. Within a few days of admission, Everly started exhibiting erratic behavior. She became agitated easily, and occasionally acted aggressively toward others.

Issue

Whether the element of 'intent' in an intentional tort requires that the defendant appreciate the offensiveness of her conduct, and whether the court of appeals erred by refusing to apply the court's rule in Horton v. Reaves to a mentally incapacitated adult.

Whether the element of 'intent' in an intentional tort requires that the defendant appreciate the offensiveness of her conduct, and whether the court of appeals erred by refusing to apply this court's rule in Horton v. Reaves to a mentally incapacitated adult.

Rule

An intentional tort requires proof that the tortfeasor intended to cause harmful or offensive contact, and the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant both intended the contact and intended it to be harmful or offensive.

A person intends to make a contact with another person if she does an act for the purpose of bringing about such a contact, whether or not she also intends that the contact be harmful or offensive.

Analysis

The Supreme Court applied the dual intent requirement to the case, emphasizing that the jury must find that Everly intended both the contact and that it would be harmful or offensive. The court noted that while a mentally disabled person could be held liable for an intentional tort, the jury must consider the defendant's mental capabilities in determining intent. The court concluded that the trial court's jury instruction was adequate, as it required the jury to assess Everly's understanding of the offensiveness of her conduct.

Operating in accordance with this instruction, the jury had to find that Everly appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct in order to be liable for the intentional tort of battery.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for reinstatement of the jury verdict in favor of the defendant, White.

Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals, and remand the case to that court for reinstatement of the jury verdict in favor of White.

Who won?

The prevailing party is Barbara White, as the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the necessary intent for an intentional tort against Everly.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case to that court for reinstatement of the jury verdict in favor of White.

You must be