McDonald v. Ford
223 So.2d 553 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An action for an intentional tort, such as assault and battery, cannot be sustained on a theory of negligence because an intentional act is legally distinct from an unintentional, negligent act.
Facts:
- Marie McDonald and E.I. Ford had a social relationship and had previously contemplated marriage.
- On the evening of the incident, McDonald and Ford were together, and Ford consumed several alcoholic drinks.
- In the early morning of April 26, 1965, they went to Ford's home, where McDonald agreed to make coffee.
- While McDonald was kneeling on the living room floor sorting records, Ford came up behind her.
- Ford laughingly embraced McDonald, crushing her and kissing her hard despite her resistance.
- McDonald struggled violently to get away as Ford's embrace was physically hurting her.
- During the struggle, McDonald's face was struck hard against an unidentified object, injuring her jaw.
- Immediately after breaking free, McDonald left Ford's home.
Procedural Posture:
- Marie McDonald sued E.I. Ford in a Florida trial court, alleging her personal injuries were caused by Ford's negligence.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, finding that the plaintiff's testimony established an intentional tort (battery), not negligence.
- A final judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, Ford.
- The plaintiff, Marie McDonald, appealed the final judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a plaintiff's cause of action for negligence survive a motion for a directed verdict when the plaintiff's own evidence conclusively proves the defendant committed an intentional tort, such as battery?
Opinions:
Majority - Hobson, J.
No. A cause of action for negligence cannot be sustained when the facts establish an intentional tort. The court found that McDonald's testimony clearly described an assault and battery, which is defined as an intentional, unconsented touching. Citing legal scholar Dean Prosser, the court noted that the 'gist of the action for battery is not the hostile intent of the defendant, but rather the absence of consent to the contact on the part of the plaintiff,' and that an unconsented kiss can constitute a battery. Relying on precedent from another jurisdiction, the court adopted the principle that 'An assault and battery is not negligence for such action is intentional, while negligence connotes an unintentional act.' Because McDonald's proof established an intentional act, there was no issue of negligence to submit to the jury, and the trial court's directed verdict was proper.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental legal distinction between intentional torts and negligence. It prevents plaintiffs from re-characterizing an intentional act as a negligent one to fit a preferred legal theory. This distinction is significant for future cases because it affects issues such as statutes of limitations, the availability of punitive damages, and whether insurance policies, which often exclude coverage for intentional acts, will apply. The case solidifies the principle that a plaintiff must plead a cause of action that is consistent with the facts they intend to prove.
