McCracken v. Sloan
252 S.E.2d 250, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 2601, 40 N.C. App. 214 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an intentional, non-consensual, and offensive contact to constitute a battery, the contact must result in physical harm; mere exposure to an offensive substance like cigar smoke that causes only mental distress is insufficient.
Facts:
- The defendant smoked cigars in his own office while the plaintiff was also present in the room.
- The defendant was aware that the plaintiff was allergic to tobacco smoke and found it to be personally offensive and injurious to his health.
- On at least two specific occasions, the defendant's smoking caused the plaintiff to inhale cigar smoke.
- The plaintiff experienced mental distress as a result of inhaling the cigar smoke.
- The plaintiff presented statements from doctors confirming an allergy to tobacco smoke, but provided no evidence that the defendant's actions on the dates in question caused any specific physical illness.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant for assault and battery in the superior court (trial court).
- At a pretrial conference, the parties stipulated to the evidence that the plaintiff would present in the most favorable light.
- Based on this stipulation of evidence, the trial court judge dismissed the plaintiff's action.
- The plaintiff (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
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 a defendant commit a battery by intentionally exposing a plaintiff to offensive cigar smoke, when the defendant knows of the plaintiff's sensitivity but the exposure causes only mental distress without any resulting physical illness?
Opinions:
Majority - Webb, J.
No. A defendant does not commit a battery by intentionally exposing a plaintiff to offensive cigar smoke if it only causes mental distress without physical illness. The court reasoned that while battery protects against unconsented contacts, society assumes consent for ordinary, inevitable contacts customary to life in a 'crowded world.' Smelling smoke is typically such a contact. While the defendant knew of the plaintiff's sensitivity, an individual cannot, by their own 'fiat,' make all physical contact a source of liability. The critical missing element for the plaintiff's claim was evidence of a resulting physical illness; without it, the contact of inhaling smoke, though obnoxious, was a 'touching which must be endured' and did not rise to the level of a battery.
Analysis:
This decision sets a significant boundary for the tort of battery, particularly regarding intangible contacts like smoke, odors, or light. It establishes a requirement of tangible, physical harm, distinguishing battery from lesser annoyances. By doing so, the court prevents the tort from being expanded to cover purely subjective or emotional reactions to everyday environmental conditions. This precedent requires future plaintiffs in similar cases to prove a concrete physical injury, not just offense or mental distress, to sustain a battery claim based on exposure to an intangible substance.
Unlock the full brief for McCracken v. Sloan