Wagner v. State
2005 UT 54, 533 Utah Adv. Rep. 23, 122 P.3d 599 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The tort of battery only requires that the actor intend to make a physical contact, and that the contact is in fact harmful or offensive under an objective legal standard; the actor does not need to intend for the contact to cause harm or offense.
Facts:
- Sam Giese was a mentally disabled patient of the Utah State Development Center (USDC) with a known history of violent conduct.
- USDC employees took Giese to a K-Mart store in American Fork, Utah, as part of his treatment program and were supervising him.
- While standing in a customer service line, Tracy Wagner was suddenly attacked from behind by Giese.
- Giese grabbed Wagner by the head and hair, threw her to the ground, and caused her serious bodily injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Tracy and Robert Wagner filed a complaint against the Utah State Development Center and the Utah Department of Human Services in a Utah district court (trial court).
- The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting governmental immunity because the injury arose from a battery.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the Wagners' complaint.
- The Wagners (appellants) appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals.
- The Utah Court of Appeals issued a memorandum opinion affirming the district court's dismissal.
- The Wagners petitioned the Utah Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which the court granted.
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 harmful physical contact initiated by a mentally incompetent person constitute a battery for the purposes of the Governmental Immunity Act, even if the person lacks the capacity to form an intent to cause harm or offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkins, Associate Chief Justice
Yes, the contact constitutes a battery. For civil battery, the only intent required is the intent to make contact, not an intent to cause harm or offense. Adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the court holds that a battery occurs if an actor intends to cause a contact, and a harmful or offensive contact results. The actor's mental capacity or appreciation of the contact's harmfulness is irrelevant. The court overrules prior precedent, Matheson v. Pearson, which required an intent to harm. Because Giese intended to make contact with Wagner, his actions constituted a battery, and the State is therefore immune from suit for the resulting injuries under the Governmental Immunity Act's exception for battery.
Concurring - Durham, Chief Justice
The lead opinion's treatment of the battery issue is correct. This opinion notes that the petitioners' arguments concerning the validity of Ledfors v. Emery County School District were stricken because they were not addressed by the court of appeals and were thus outside the scope of certiorari review.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and solidifies Utah's definition of civil battery, aligning it with the Restatement (Second) of Torts and the majority of U.S. jurisdictions. By explicitly overruling prior case law that required an intent to harm, the court lowers the intent threshold for battery to merely the intent to make contact. This ruling significantly impacts governmental immunity cases by making it more difficult for plaintiffs to frame claims arising from intentional torts as negligence in supervision, thereby broadening the protective scope of immunity for governmental entities.
