John Reynolds v. Bret MaeFarlane
322 P. 3d 755, 2014 UT App 57 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An assault requires the victim to have an imminent apprehension of contact, meaning they must be aware of the impending act before it is completed. A battery is an intentional, offensive contact with a person, which includes contact with an object so intimately connected with the person's body as to be considered part of it, such as an object held in their hand.
Facts:
- Bret MaeFarlane and John Reynolds were coworkers.
- On August 5, 2009, Reynolds was standing in the workplace break room holding a ten dollar bill.
- Unbeknownst to Reynolds, MaeFarlane approached him from behind.
- MaeFarlane quickly snatched the ten dollar bill from Reynolds's hand without physically touching Reynolds's body.
- Reynolds was not aware of MaeFarlane's presence until after the bill had been taken from his hand.
- MaeFarlane immediately said, "That was too easy," and returned the money to Reynolds.
- In response, Reynolds struck MaeFarlane, splitting his lip.
- Reynolds later received medical treatment for anxiety, which he told his doctor resulted from difficulties at work.
Procedural Posture:
- John Reynolds filed a complaint against Bret MaeFarlane in a trial court, alleging assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- At the subsequent bench trial, the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was dismissed by stipulation of the parties.
- The trial court granted Reynolds's motion to amend his complaint to add a claim for battery.
- The trial court found in favor of the defendant, MaeFarlane, concluding that Reynolds had failed to prove either assault or battery, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
- Reynolds (appellant) appealed the trial court's dismissal of his assault and battery claims to the Utah Court of Appeals.
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 snatching an object from a person's hand constitute assault if the person was unaware of the act until it was completed, and does it constitute battery even if there was no direct physical contact with the person's body?
Opinions:
Majority - Bench, Senior Judge
No as to assault, Yes as to battery. Snatching an object from an unaware person's hand is not an assault because the victim cannot be in 'imminent apprehension' of a contact they are not aware of until after it occurs; however, it is a battery because contact with an object held in one's hand is considered contact with the person. For an assault, the victim must be aware of the threat before the act is terminated. Since Reynolds did not know of MaeFarlane's presence until after the bill was snatched, he could not have apprehended the contact. For a battery, the law protects a person's integrity, which extends to items 'practically identified with' them. Intentionally snatching an object from a person's hand constitutes an offensive contact with their person, satisfying the elements of battery. The court found that MaeFarlane intended the contact (taking the bill), which is all the intent required for battery, regardless of whether he intended to cause offense or harm.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and reinforces the distinct elements of assault and battery under Utah law by adopting the majority view and Restatement (Second) of Torts position. It establishes a clear precedent that the victim's subjective, contemporaneous awareness is essential for an assault claim, highlighting the tort's focus on mental apprehension. For battery, the ruling expands the concept of 'person' to include objects intimately connected thereto, meaning a defendant cannot evade liability by arguing they only touched an object held by the plaintiff. This provides a crucial distinction for future tort cases involving indirect contact and reinforces that even a technically harmless but offensive touching (a battery) entitles the victim to nominal damages.
