McGuire v. Almy
1937 Mass. LEXIS 767, 297 Mass. 323, 8 N.E.2d 760 (1937)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person with a mental disability is liable for an intentional tort if they are capable of forming the intent to commit the harmful act, regardless of whether their mental condition was the cause of that intent.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, a registered nurse, was hired for 24-hour duty to care for the defendant, whom she knew to be an insane person.
- For approximately fourteen months, the plaintiff cared for the defendant, who had occasional hostile spells and had previously been violent.
- The plaintiff typically kept the defendant locked in her room, which had a grated window.
- On April 19, 1932, the defendant experienced a violent attack while locked in her room, breaking furniture and audibly threatening to kill the plaintiff if she entered.
- The plaintiff, fearing the defendant would harm herself with the broken furniture, decided to enter the room.
- Upon the plaintiff's entry, the defendant was holding the leg of a broken piece of furniture.
- As the plaintiff approached to try and take the object from the defendant's hand, the defendant struck the plaintiff on the head with it, causing injury.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed an action of tort against the defendant for assault and battery in the trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendant argued that the judge should have directed a verdict for the defendant.
- The trial judge reported the question of law regarding the directed verdict to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for a decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a person with a mental disability civilly liable for an intentional tort if they possessed the capacity to intend the act that caused the injury, even if their mental condition motivated that intent?
Opinions:
Majority - Qua, J.
Yes. Where an insane person by his act does intentional damage to the person or property of another, he is liable for that damage in the same circumstances in which a normal person would be liable. The court's reasoning rests on public policy and the prevailing common law rule. The court identified several policy justifications: holding a mentally disabled person liable encourages their caretakers to be more watchful, it aligns with the principle that they must pay for their own support, it prevents a wealthy but insane individual from enjoying their assets while their victim bears the cost of the injury, and it avoids the significant difficulties of determining mental capacity in civil litigation. The court established that for an intentional tort, the only inquiry is whether the actor was capable of entertaining the requisite intent and did, in fact, entertain it. The law will not excuse the act because a delusion caused the intent. The court also rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff assumed the risk, finding that the nurse's entry into the room was a reasonable attempt to perform her professional duty in an emergency, not a voluntary consent to injury.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the objective standard for intentional torts, establishing that a defendant's mental disability is not a defense if they had the capacity to form the requisite intent. It firmly separates civil liability, which prioritizes compensating the injured party, from criminal liability, where moral culpability is central. The decision reinforces the majority American rule and has significant implications for professional caregivers, clarifying that performing their duties in a dangerous situation does not automatically constitute assumption of risk or consent to battery.
Unlock the full brief for McGuire v. Almy