Paul v. Holbrook
696 So.2d 1311 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An unwanted physical touching constitutes an actionable battery if an ordinary person would find the contact offensive under the circumstances. The determination of whether a specific contact is offensive is a question of fact for the jury, not a matter of law for a judge to decide on summary judgment.
Facts:
- Meredith A. Paul and Paul Holbrook were coworkers at Professional Medical Products, Inc. (PMP), where Holbrook was not Paul's supervisor.
- On various occasions when they worked alone, Holbrook allegedly asked Paul to wear revealing clothing and suggested they engage in sexual relations.
- On two separate occasions, Holbrook approached Paul from behind while she was working and attempted to massage her shoulders.
- Each time Holbrook touched her, Paul immediately pulled away and told him to leave, which he did.
- After Paul complained to PMP's management, the company changed their schedules so they no longer worked the same shifts, and Holbrook's behavior towards her ended.
Procedural Posture:
- Meredith A. Paul sued Paul Holbrook and Professional Medical Products, Inc. in a Florida trial court for claims including assault and battery.
- The defendants, Holbrook and PMP, filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the claims without a full trial.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims, ruling in their favor.
- Paul, as the Appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth 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:
Does a coworker's unconsented, non-harmful physical contact, such as a shoulder massage, create a question of fact for a jury as to whether an offensive battery occurred?
Opinions:
Majority - Orfinger, R.B., Associate Judge
Yes, a coworker's unconsented, non-harmful physical contact can create a question of fact for a jury as to whether an offensive battery occurred. The tort of battery protects personal integrity from any harmful or offensive contact. A contact is considered offensive if it would offend an ordinary person's reasonable sense of personal dignity. The court reasoned that what constitutes offensive contact depends on the time, place, circumstances, and the relationship between the parties. Here, the act of a coworker approaching from behind and attempting a shoulder massage, especially in the context of prior alleged harassment, is not something a court can declare inoffensive as a matter of law. Furthermore, the intent required for battery is merely the intent to make contact, not an intent to cause harm, and a jury could reasonably infer Holbrook intended to make the contact. Therefore, the question of offensiveness must be decided by a jury.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that the 'offensiveness' element of a battery claim is a factual inquiry properly reserved for the jury, particularly in the context of workplace interactions. The decision reinforces that battery law protects individuals from any unconsented contact that offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity, not just contacts that cause physical harm. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to obtain summary judgment on battery claims involving non-violent but allegedly inappropriate physical contact, ensuring that plaintiffs have their day in court to let a jury assess the totality of the circumstances.
Unlock the full brief for Paul v. Holbrook