Waters v. Blackshear
591 N.E.2d 184 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An act committed with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact constitutes an intentional tort (battery) and cannot be characterized as negligence, even if the actor did not intend the full extent of the resulting injuries.
Facts:
- The minor defendant had been lighting firecrackers for approximately ten minutes, tossing them on the ground.
- The minor plaintiff, Maurice Waters, who was seven years old, was unsuspecting.
- The defendant, who was slightly older than Maurice, placed a firecracker in Maurice's left sneaker.
- The defendant then lit the firecracker.
- As a result, Maurice Waters sustained burn injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Maurice Waters and his mother sued the minor defendant in a trial court, alleging a single claim of negligence.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The defendant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).
- The trial court judge granted the defendant's JNOV motion, setting aside the jury's verdict and entering judgment for the defendant.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial judge's ruling.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted the plaintiffs' application for direct appellate review.
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 the act of intentionally placing and lighting a firecracker in another person's sneaker constitute negligence if the actor did not intend the specific degree of injury that resulted?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkins, J.
No. An act cannot be both intentional and negligent. The defendant’s conduct was a battery, an intentional tort, because he acted with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact. The law establishes that intentional conduct and negligent conduct are mutually exclusive categories. The defendant's act of intentionally placing a firecracker in Maurice's sneaker and lighting it was an unpermitted contact intended to be, at a minimum, offensive. It is not significant whether the defendant intended the specific injuries Maurice sustained; the intent to cause the harmful or offensive contact is sufficient to establish a battery. The defendant's status as a minor does not change this conclusion, as there was no evidence suggesting he was too young to appreciate the harmful nature of his actions. Therefore, as a matter of law, the conduct was an intentional battery and could not support a jury verdict for negligence.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the fundamental legal distinction between intentional torts and negligence, establishing that they are mutually exclusive. It clarifies that the intent element for battery focuses on the intent to make contact, not the intent to cause the specific resulting harm. This precedent prevents plaintiffs from reframing clear intentional torts as negligence, a strategy sometimes used to circumvent insurance policy exclusions for intentional acts. The decision limits the jury's role by holding that where the facts unequivocally show an intentional act, a finding of negligence is impermissible as a matter of law.
Unlock the full brief for Waters v. Blackshear