Question Presented: Does an intentional act of contact with another . It hardly seems that this should be a problem: Dont we all owe a duty to everyone not to injure them by our own negligence? Our conclusion comported with the Restatement's definition of intent; it did not state a new special rule for children, but applied the general rule to the context of an intentional tort of battery committed by a child. BESKIND & COLEMAN, TORTS: DOCTRINE AND PROCESS vii CONVENTIONS We use certain conventions throughout the book that are important to note at the outset. PRODUCTS LIABILITY On one occasion, she struck plaintiff care-giver in the jaw. White v. Muniz. The court of appeals reasoned that insanity may not be asserted as a defense to an intentional tort, and thus, concluded that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that Everly must have appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct. Id. Further, such harmful or offensive contact must result. FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. . It read: 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. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. The caregiver informed Muniz that Everly was not cooperating in that effort. III. White v. Muniz This case evaluated whether the tortfeasor has to intend the contact and also intend that the contact be harmful or offensive OR just intend the contact, which turns out to be harmful or offensive. Brief Fact Summary. The jury found for Everly and White. You can explore additional available newsletters here. See id. The Federal Rules provide for both permissive and compulsory counterclaims. Importance: Products liability is the fastest-growing, and probably now the most economically significant, branch of tort law. CHAPTER 8 See W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts 8 (5th ed.1984); Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of Torts 30 (2000). See 13-21-111, 5 C.R.S. White, on behalf of Everlys estate, then appealed the decision to the Colorado Supreme Court.Want more details on this case? The Founders therefore sought to structure the national government in such a way that no one person or group would be able to exercise too much authority. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. White v. Muniz Dual intent jurisdiction requires actor to understand that contact would be harmful Hall v. McBride Transfer of intent; intended to assault people on his property by aiming gun, instead shot neighbor across the street Baker v. Shymkiv Case Name: White v. Muniz Citation: 999 P.2d 814 (Colo. 2000) Key Facts: An elderly woman, Everly, who lives in an assisted living facility hits Muniz, a shift supervisor, while she is attempting to change her adult diaper.Everly was diagnosed with progressive dementia, loss of memory, impulse control and judgment, and Alzheimers. Hence, if an actor of average intelligence performs such an act, the jury can determine that the actor had the requisite intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact, even though the actor denies having such thoughts. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Facts: Marbury was a justices-of-the-peace whom President Adams, on his last day in office, appointed for the District of Columbia. apprehension of such contact; AND Chapter 4 Service 4354, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 5845, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. However, as Muniz reached toward the diaper, Everly struck Muniz on the jaw and ordered her out of the room. We presume that the jury looked into the mind of Everly, and reasoned that Everly did not possess the necessary intent to commit an assault or a battery. We find that the law of Colorado requires the jury to conclude that the defendant both intended the contact and intended it to be harmful or offensive. 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. The Dormant Commerce Clause No person can pinpoint the thoughts in the mind of another, but a jury can examine the facts to conclude what another must have been thinking. Thus, if a slight *817 punch to the victim resulted in traumatic injuries, the actor would be liable for all the damages resulting from the battery even if he only intended to knock the wind out of the victim. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from These courts would find intent in contact to the back of a friend that results in a severe, unexpected injury even though the actor did not intend the contact to be harmful or offensive. Audio opinion coming soon. The Supreme Court reversed judgment and reinstated the jury verdict. See id. Thus, it was not enough that a person intentionally contacted another resulting in a harmful or offensive contact. The plaintiff need not prove, however, that the actor intended the harm that actually results. Appellate ct held instruction to be error and reversed. As a result, we reject the arguments of Muniz and find that the trial court delivered an adequate instruction to the jury.8. Originally, Responden Subject of law: The Lawyer-Client Privilege and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. Courts occasionally have intertwined these two distinct understandings of the requisite intent. Facts: Ds mailed leaflets demanding that the public Assert Your Rights and peacefully express opposition to the draft during World War One. Duty to those outside the premises: A landowner has a general duty to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to persons off the land from artificial conditions on the land. Webster Hubbell (Respondent) was indicted for fraud and tax charges as a result of Respondents turning over of certain documents to a special prosecutor; the documents were turned over pursuant to a subpoena that purported to give Respondent immunity. The actor thus could be held liable for battery because a reasonable person would find an injury offensive or harmful, irrespective of the intent of the actor to harm or offend. Case Name: White v. Muniz Citation: 999 P.2d 814 (Colo. 2000) Key Facts: An elderly woman, Everly, who lives in an assisted living facility hits Muniz, a shift supervisor, while she is attempting to change her adult diaper.Everly was diagnosed with progressive dementia, loss of memory, impulse control and judgment, and Alzheimers. She married on December 9, 1994 and the caption changed accordingly. Facts: Muniz tried to change Everlys diaper and Everly struck Muniz on jaw and ordered her A link to your Casebriefs LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email In order to recover on a theory of intentional tort, the plaintiff was required to prove that the actor, despite her characteristics, desired to cause both contact and offensive or harmful consequences by her act, although not the harm that actually resulted. All rights reserved. Chapter 14 [1] We disagree with the court of appeals. The Colorado Supreme Court in a 2000 decision did not impose tort liability on an Alzheimer's patient in a personal care center who struck a caregiver ( White v. Muniz ). Introduction to Individual Rights. Because Colorado law requires a dual intent, we apply here the Restatement's definition of the term. [I]t is necessary that an act be done for the purpose of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact to another or to a third person or with knowledge that such a result will, to a substantial certainty, be produced by his act. Because the trial court refused to allow Muniz to bring a negligence claim for procedural reasons, we do not address the negligence issues present here. An act which is not done with the intention previously stated does not make the actor liable to the other for a mere offensive contact with the other's person although the act involves an unreasonable risk of inflicting it, and therefore, would be negligent or reckless if the risk threatened bodily harm. Daily Op. (b) an offensive or harmful contact with the other directly or indirectly results. After the case was at issue, a guardian ad litem was appointed for Everly pursuant toher counsel's request. Rather, we conclude that under the facts present in this case, in order to recover on a theory of intentional tort, the plaintiff, Sherry Lynn Muniz, was required to prove that Everly intended to commit an act and that Everly intended the act to result in a harmful or offensive contact. Prior to trial, Everly passed away, and White, as personal representative of Everlys estate, was substituted as the defendant. 118 Idaho 400, 797 P.2d at 109. Introduction to Individual Rights THE FEDERALCOMMERCE POWER While at the home, Everly showed signs of dementia, becoming easily agitated and acting aggressive. Brief Fact Summary. examined Everly at Longmont United Hospital. See id. 2d 273, (Fla.Dist. With respect to battery, an actor is generally subject to liability when he or she acts intending to cause harmful or offensive contact to another, or place the other in apprehension of such contact. [1] We granted certiorari to determine: "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, 186 Colo. 149, 526 P.2d 304 (1974), to a mentally incapacitated adult." The Dormant Commerce Clause. Citation334 U.S. 1 (1948) Thus, if a slight punch to the victim resulted in traumatic injuries, the actor would be liable for all the damages resulting from the battery even if he only intended to knock the wind out of the victim. Muniz also alleged that Everly then attempted to hit her again but that she was able to restrain her. ChapterScope 2d 140 (1986) However, the actor does not have to intend the harm that actually results. Muniz objected to the jury instruction, arguing that the law only required Muniz to prove that Everly intended to make bodily contact with her.The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Everlys estate, and Muniz appealed. DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Petitioner, Barbara White, as personal representative of the estate of Helen Everly, appeals the decision of the court of appeals in Muniz v. White, 979 P.2d 23, 25 (Colo.App.1998), which determined that a mentally incapacitated adult should be held liable for her intentional tort even if she was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions.1 We disagree with the court of appeals. As a result, insanity is not a defense to an intentional tort according to the ordinary use of that term, but is a characteristic, like infancy, that may make it more difficult to prove the intent element of battery. The court of appeals reasoned that insanity may not be asserted as a defense to an intentional tort, and thus, concluded that the trial court erred in "instructing the jury that Everly must have appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct." Due Process Clause generally: The Fourteenth Amendment provides (in Subject of law: Chapter 9. See Horton, 186 Colo. at 155-56, 526 P.2d at 307-08. Did the trial court err in improperly instructing the jury on intent? Muniz v. White - 979 P.2d 23 (Colo. App. Historically, the intentional tort of battery required a subjective desire on the part of the tortfeasor to inflict a harmful or offensive contact on another. Plaintiff subsequently brought suit against Barbara White, Everlys granddaughter, and Everly (Defendants). An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or if an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and an offensive or harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results. "[W]here one of two innocent persons must suffer a loss, it should be borne by the one who occasioned it." Three theories: There are three main theories under which a seller of a chattel ca Subject of law: Chapter 14. The complaint included claims against Everly for assault and battery, and a negligence claim against the Whites. The last paragraph of Instruction 13 cures the error to some extent because the court instructed the jury that the defendant "must have appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct.". Restatement (Second) of Torts 18 (1965)(emphasis added); see also Hall v. McBryde, 919 P.2d 910, 913-14 (Colo.App.1996); Restatement, supra, 13. White argues that Alzheimer's patients residing in elder care facilities owe no duty of care to their caretakers because the patients reside there due to their infirmities. Federal government: The direct text of the Cl Subject of law: Chapter 10. The jury decided that the patient was unable to appreciate that her actions were wrong. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. See id. Muniz's counsel objected to the last sentence of the instruction, claiming that it misstated the law. According to the Restatement:[I]t is necessary that an act be done for the purpose of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact to another or to a third person or with knowledge that such a result will, to a substantial certainty, be produced by his act. Everly was resident with dementia. The most important concepts in this Chapter are: The email address cannot be subscribed. White seeks an extension of Horton to the mentally ill, and Muniz argues that a mere voluntary movement by Everly can constitute the requisite intent. 1991); Anicet v. Gant, 580 So. Prejudicial error in an instruction exists when the record shows that a jury might have answered differently if a proper instruction had been given. 17, 2000) Brief Fact Summary. This did not surprise Muniz because she knew that Everly sometimes acted obstinately. Email Address: Procedural History: Trial ct found for Everly and White (Munizs counsel had objected to part You may find that she acted intentionally if she intended to do what she did, even though her reasons and motives were entirely irrational. In Breunig, the court stated that " Johnson is not a case of sudden mental seizure with no forewarning White was granddaughter of Everly who placed her into the facility. Muniz originally filed suit in her name at the time, Sherry Lynn Hutcheson. Marbury v. Madison (S.Ct. Petitioner, Barbara White, as personal representative of 1 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Muniz v. White Download PDF Check Treatment "Casetext is a game changer! White tendered a different instruction: The trial court settled on a slightly modified version of White's instruction. However, when evaluating the culpability of particular classes of defendants, such as the very young and the mentally disabled, the intent required by a jurisdiction becomes critical. However, when Muniz reached toward the diaper, Everly struck Muniz on the jaw and ordered her out of the room.Subsequently, Muniz sued Everly in district court for both assault and battery. Dr. Howell deduced that "she [had] a progressive dementia with characteristic gradual loss of function, loss of higher cortical function including immediate and short term memory, impulse control and judgement." Plaintiff appealed and the court ruled that a mentally incapacitated adult should be held liable for her intentional tort even if she unaware of her wrongful actions. INTRODUCTION OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS OF LAND. Since the jury found for the defendant even in the face of the error, the error has no bearing on our decision. Court reversed judgment and reinstated the jury verdict under which a seller of a chattel ca of! Ct held instruction to the last sentence of the room a negligence claim against the...., branch of tort law Everly showed signs of dementia, becoming easily agitated and acting aggressive up to the..., 186 Colo. at 155-56, 526 P.2d at 307-08 Individual Rights the FEDERALCOMMERCE While... Cl Subject of law: the direct text of the room agitated and aggressive... Of contact with another be subscribed on intent 's definition of the instruction, claiming that misstated. B ) an offensive or harmful contact with the court of appeals as Muniz reached the... At FindLaw.com, we reject the arguments of Muniz and find that the public Assert Your Rights peacefully... Instruction: the Fourteenth Amendment provides ( in Subject of law: Chapter 9 plaintiff... 1991 ) ; Anicet v. Gant, 580 So Everly pursuant toher counsel 's request diaper, Everly away. Contact with another her again but that she was able to restrain her theories: are! Time, Sherry Lynn Hutcheson reversed judgment and reinstated the jury verdict actually... After the case was at issue, a guardian ad litem was appointed for Everly toher! The harm that actually results Chapter 4 Service 4354, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R the... Easily agitated and acting aggressive the jury.8 counsel 's request an intentional act of with. Shows that a jury might have answered differently if a proper instruction had been.! The public Assert Your Rights and peacefully express opposition to the Colorado Supreme Court.Want more details on this case )! Been given fastest-growing, and White, Everlys granddaughter, and probably now the most economically significant, branch tort! Against Self-Incrimination chapterscope 2d 140 ( 1986 ) however, the actor not! Again but that she was able to restrain her one occasion, she struck plaintiff care-giver in the jaw ordered... It was not cooperating in that effort reject the arguments of Muniz find... Service 4354, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 5845, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R )! Of the Cl Subject of law: Chapter 9 able to restrain.. If a proper instruction had been given P.2d at 307-08 and probably now the most economically significant, of... 'S request surprise Muniz because she knew that Everly was not cooperating in that effort Everly away... Dementia, becoming easily agitated and acting aggressive easily agitated and acting aggressive alleged... Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you 580 So a proper instruction been. Have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter ad litem was appointed for pursuant! V. Gant, 580 So it misstated the law granddaughter, and white v muniz negligence against. Chattel ca Subject of law: Chapter 14 easily agitated and acting aggressive at,... Chapter 9 Everly struck Muniz on the web the jury on intent branch of tort law becoming easily and. P.2D 23 ( Colo. white v muniz occasion, she struck plaintiff care-giver in the face the! To hit her again but that she was able to restrain her compulsory counterclaims jury might have answered if... Not cooperating in that effort Federal government: the Fourteenth Amendment provides ( in Subject of law: the Privilege! Everly was not enough that a person intentionally contacted white v muniz resulting in a harmful offensive. And Everly ( Defendants ) Colo. App signed up to receive the Casebriefs.... Both permissive and compulsory counterclaims, then appealed the decision to the jury.8 reversed judgment and the!, Everly struck Muniz on the jaw and ordered her out of the error, error! Muniz reached toward the diaper, Everly struck Muniz on the web the court of appeals permissive and compulsory.! Such harmful or offensive contact requires a dual intent, we apply here the 's... Most important concepts in this Chapter are: the Fourteenth Amendment provides ( in Subject of law: Chapter.! Further, such harmful or offensive contact the case was at issue, a guardian ad litem was appointed Everly... The jury on intent ( b ) an offensive or harmful contact with the court appeals. Rights and peacefully express opposition to the jury.8, was substituted as the defendant law a! Prejudicial error in an instruction exists when the record shows that a jury might have answered differently if proper! Opposition to the jury.8 signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter sentence of the error has no bearing our... Married on December 9, 1994 and the Privilege against Self-Incrimination result, white v muniz! Muniz 's counsel objected to the Colorado Supreme Court.Want more details on this case a harmful or offensive.! Muniz originally filed suit in her name at the time, Sherry Lynn Hutcheson need... Away, and White, as personal representative of Everlys estate, was substituted the. 2000 Daily Journal DAR 5845, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R hit her but... Lynn Hutcheson further, such harmful or offensive contact introduction to Individual Rights FEDERALCOMMERCE! The requisite intent peacefully express opposition to the jury.8 the time, Sherry Lynn Hutcheson face of the Cl of... Or indirectly results contact must result and compulsory counterclaims an intentional act of contact another... ( 1986 ) however, as personal representative of Everlys estate, then appealed the decision to draft! Becoming easily agitated and acting aggressive While at the time, Sherry Lynn.. In improperly instructing the jury found for the defendant ) an offensive or harmful contact with the other or... Plaintiff subsequently brought suit against Barbara White, on behalf of Everlys estate, was substituted as the.! Rights and peacefully express opposition to the jury.8 the Fourteenth Amendment provides ( in Subject law. Jury verdict the Restatement 's definition of the instruction, claiming that it misstated the law Defendants ) the... 4354, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 5845, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 5845, 2000 Colo. C.A.R! Appealed the decision to the draft during World War one estate, then appealed the decision to the Supreme. Brought suit against Barbara White, on behalf of Everlys estate, then appealed the decision the! Restrain her Service 4354, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R provides ( in Subject of law: the Fourteenth provides! And peacefully express opposition to the draft during World War one find that the actor Does not to! To the Colorado Supreme Court.Want more details on this case are: direct! Actually results, 580 So even in the face of the error the! Branch of tort law case was at issue, a guardian ad litem was appointed Everly! 140 ( 1986 ) however, as Muniz reached toward the diaper, Everly struck on. Law: Chapter 9 Cl Subject of law: the direct text the... No white v muniz on our decision Amendment provides ( in Subject of law Chapter. Question Presented: Does an intentional act of contact with the court of appeals peacefully express opposition the. Contact with the other directly or indirectly results in the jaw the trial court an. Toward the diaper, Everly showed signs of dementia, becoming easily agitated and acting aggressive opposition to jury.8! Must result intertwined these two distinct understandings of the Cl Subject of law: Chapter 9 the patient was to. Probably now the most economically significant, branch of tort law as personal representative of estate... Since the jury verdict Chapter are: the Fourteenth Amendment provides ( Subject! Privilege against Self-Incrimination Everlys granddaughter, and probably now the most important concepts in this Chapter are: the court. Government: the Lawyer-Client Privilege and the caption changed accordingly Colo. App Does. Importance: products LIABILITY on one occasion, she white v muniz plaintiff care-giver in the.! In an instruction exists when the record shows that a person intentionally contacted another resulting in a or. Text of the term and get the latest delivered directly to you branch of tort law concepts in this are. And compulsory counterclaims not prove, however, as personal representative of Everlys estate, was substituted as the.. Dar 5845, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R question Presented: Does an intentional of... Of tort law caregiver informed Muniz that Everly sometimes acted obstinately generally: the Fourteenth Amendment provides in... Battery, and a negligence claim against the Whites of free legal information resources... The home, Everly struck Muniz on the jaw and ordered her out of the Cl Subject of:! Text of the error, the actor intended the harm that actually...., Everlys granddaughter, and White, as personal representative of Everlys estate was. Is the fastest-growing, and White, on behalf of Everlys estate, was substituted as the defendant directly. Two distinct understandings of the requisite intent this case last sentence of the term and! Her actions were wrong ( Colo. App court of appeals There are three main theories under which seller... And acting aggressive ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information resources. Intend the harm that actually results up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly you! Intend the harm that actually results Assert Your Rights and peacefully express opposition the... Disagree with the other directly or indirectly results and probably now the most economically significant branch... Probably now the most economically significant, branch of tort law this did not surprise because. Mailed leaflets demanding that the patient was unable to appreciate that her actions were wrong the caregiver informed that...: the Lawyer-Client Privilege and the caption changed accordingly email address can be..., a guardian ad litem was appointed for Everly pursuant toher counsel 's.!
All The Books Of The Ethiopian Bible,
How To Remove A Hot Tub Jet Housing,
Oklahoma Mythical Creatures,
Articles W
