Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc.
424 S.W.2d 627 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An intentional and offensive touching of an object intimately connected with a person's body constitutes a battery, even in the absence of direct physical contact with the body itself. A corporation is liable for exemplary damages for the malicious act of its employee if that employee was acting in a managerial capacity and within the scope of their employment.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, Emmett J. Fisher, a mathematician with NASA, was invited to attend a professional luncheon at the Carrousel Motor Hotel.
- The luncheon took place at the hotel's Brass Ring Club.
- Fisher, who is African American, was in the buffet line and was about to be served when he was approached by Robert W. Flynn, the manager of the club.
- Flynn snatched the dinner plate from Fisher's hand.
- Flynn stated in a loud voice that Fisher, as a 'Negro,' could not be served in the club.
- Flynn never made physical contact with Fisher's body.
- The incident occurred in front of Fisher's professional associates, causing him to be highly embarrassed and hurt.
Procedural Posture:
- Fisher sued Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc. and the Brass Ring Club in a Texas trial court for damages from an alleged assault and battery.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Fisher, awarding $400 in actual damages and $500 in exemplary damages.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), setting aside the jury's findings.
- Fisher, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendants-appellees.
- Fisher, as petitioner, then sought review from the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the intentional, forcible, and offensive dispossession of an object from a person's hand constitute an actionable battery, even without physical contact with the person's body?
Opinions:
Majority - Greenhill, Justice
Yes. The intentional snatching of an object from one's hand is an offensive invasion of their person and constitutes a battery. The tort of battery protects the integrity of the person, which includes things so intimately connected with the body as to be considered part of it, such as clothing or an object held in the hand. The essence of the plaintiff's grievance is the offense to dignity involved in the unpermitted invasion of their personal inviolability, not merely the physical harm done. Therefore, direct physical contact with the plaintiff's body is not required. The court found that damages for mental suffering are recoverable in a case of willful battery, as personal indignity is the essence of the action. Furthermore, the corporate defendants are liable for exemplary damages because their employee, Flynn, was acting in a managerial capacity and within the scope of his employment when he committed the malicious act, which satisfies one of the conditions for vicarious liability for punitive damages.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of the tort of battery by expanding the definition of 'person' to include items in such close proximity or connection that they are considered an extension of the self. It establishes that the core interest protected by battery is personal dignity and inviolability, not just physical security. This allows for recovery for mental suffering and humiliation resulting from an offensive contact, even without physical injury. The decision also reinforces the principle of corporate liability for the malicious acts of managerial employees, making it difficult for companies to escape punitive damages when their managers, acting within their job scope, commit willful torts.
