Picard v. Barry Pontiac‑Buick, Inc.
654 A.2d 690 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An intentional and unpermitted contact with an object that is so intimately connected with one's body as to be universally regarded as part of the person, such as an object held in their hand, is sufficient to constitute a battery.
Facts:
- Victorie A. Picard took her car to Barry Pontiac-Buick, Inc., where it failed a safety inspection due to its brakes.
- Picard then took the car to Kent's Alignment Service, where it passed the inspection.
- After Picard contacted a local television news 'troubleshooter' about the conflicting results, Barry Pontiac arranged to re-inspect the car at Kent's Alignment.
- Jesse Silvia, an employee of Barry Pontiac, arrived at Kent's Alignment to perform the re-inspection.
- While Silvia was inspecting the brakes, Picard began to take his photograph for her troubleshooter report.
- In response, Silvia pointed his finger at Picard, told her he did not want his picture taken, and approached her.
- Silvia then made contact with the camera that Picard was holding in her hand.
Procedural Posture:
- Victorie A. Picard sued Jesse Silvia and Barry Pontiac-Buick, Inc. in Superior Court, alleging assault and battery.
- During the trial, the trial justice granted Barry Pontiac's motion to dismiss the suit against it.
- The case proceeded as a bench trial (judge, no jury) against Silvia.
- The trial justice found Silvia liable for assault and battery.
- The trial justice awarded Picard $60,346 in compensatory damages and $6,350 in punitive damages.
- Jesse Silvia (defendant-appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
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 an intentional and offensive touching of an object closely identified with a person's body, such as a camera held in their hand, constitute a battery?
Opinions:
Majority - Lederberg, Justice.
Yes, an intentional and offensive touching of an object closely identified with a person's body constitutes a battery. The court affirmed the trial court's finding of assault and battery but vacated the damages award. An assault occurred because Picard's apprehension of imminent bodily harm was reasonable when Silvia lunged toward her and pointed his finger. A battery occurred because defendant's intentional contact with the camera clutched in plaintiff's hand was an offensive contact with an object so intimately connected with her body as to be regarded as part of her person, citing the Restatement (Second) of Torts. However, the court found the medical evidence submitted by Picard was incompetent to prove that Silvia's actions caused her alleged back injury, as the doctor's opinion was given five and a half years after his last examination and contained significant contradictions. Consequently, the awards for compensatory and punitive damages were vacated.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and expands the 'contact' element of the tort of battery, affirming the legal principle that the inviolability of one's person extends to objects they are holding. By adopting the view from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the court establishes that a direct physical touching of the plaintiff's body is not required to establish a battery. The case also serves as a strong precedent on the standards for proving causation and damages, emphasizing that medical evidence submitted via affidavit must be clear, unambiguous, and based on reasonably current information to be considered competent, especially when a plaintiff has a preexisting condition.
Unlock the full brief for Picard v. Barry Pontiac‑Buick, Inc.