Teolis v. Moscatelli
44 R.I. 494, 119 A. 161, 1923 R.I. LEXIS 2 (1923)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person's consent to engage in an illegal act, such as mutual combat, is void as a matter of public policy and does not serve as a valid defense to a civil action for assault and battery.
Facts:
- A dispute arose between the plaintiff, Teolis, and the defendants, Moscatelli and Neri, concerning a division fence.
- Defendant Moscatelli challenged Teolis to go into the highway and fight.
- Teolis accepted the challenge to engage in a fist fight and proceeded to the highway.
- After arriving in the highway, Teolis removed his coat to prepare for the fight.
- Immediately after Teolis removed his coat, Moscatelli stabbed him with a knife.
- While Moscatelli was stabbing Teolis, defendant Neri held Teolis and encouraged Moscatelli to continue the attack.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, Teolis, sued defendants Moscatelli and Neri for assault and battery in the Superior Court (trial court).
- A jury trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, awarding him $750 in damages.
- The defendants moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court refused.
- The defendants also moved for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- The defendants appealed these rulings to the state's highest court.
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 plaintiff's consent to engage in mutual combat bar them from recovering damages in a civil suit for assault and battery?
Opinions:
Majority - Rathbun, J.
No. A plaintiff's agreement to engage in mutual combat is not a bar to recovery for injuries sustained, because an agreement to break the peace is void. The court reasoned that the legal maxim 'volenti non fit injuria' (to a willing person, no injury is done) does not apply to agreements to commit an illegal act, such as a public fight. Citing the majority rule, the court held that because such combat is unlawful, consent is not a valid defense in a civil suit for assault and battery. The court also noted that, in any event, the plaintiff only consented to a fist fight, not to being stabbed with a knife while being held by a third party.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the majority rule in tort law that consent is not a defense to an intentional tort when the consented-to act is a breach of the peace. By declaring agreements for mutual combat void, the court reinforces the public policy of discouraging violence and maintaining public order. The ruling prevents individuals from using mutual agreement as a shield against civil liability for illegal violence, ensuring that perpetrators can be held accountable for the harm they cause. The case also highlights the principle that any purported consent is limited to its scope; even if consent were a defense, it would not extend to a fundamentally different and more dangerous attack than what was agreed upon.
Unlock the full brief for Teolis v. Moscatelli