White v. Muniz
999 P.2d 814 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish liability for the intentional tort of battery, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with a dual intent: the intent to make physical contact with another person, and the intent for that contact to be harmful or offensive.
Facts:
- Barbara White placed her eighty-three-year-old grandmother, Helen Everly, in the Beatrice Hover Personal Care Center, an assisted living facility.
- Shortly after admission, Everly, who suffered from dementia, began exhibiting agitated and occasionally aggressive behavior.
- Sherry Lynn Muniz, a shift supervisor at the facility, was asked to change Everly's adult diaper.
- Everly initially resisted but then appeared to relent to Muniz's assistance.
- As Muniz reached toward the diaper, Everly struck Muniz on the jaw.
- The day after the incident, a doctor formally diagnosed Everly with primary degenerative dementia of the Alzheimer type, noting her loss of impulse control and judgment.
Procedural Posture:
- Sherry Lynn Muniz sued Helen Everly for assault and battery in a state trial court.
- The trial court instructed the jury that for Everly to be found liable, she 'must have appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct.'
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Everly.
- Muniz, as the appellant, appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that a mentally deficient person is liable for their intentional acts regardless of their ability to understand the offensiveness of those actions, and remanded for a new trial.
- Barbara White, as personal representative of Everly's estate, successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Colorado for a writ of certiorari.
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 liability for an intentional tort, such as battery, require that the actor appreciate the offensiveness of their conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kourlis
Yes, liability for the intentional tort of battery requires that the actor appreciate the offensiveness of their conduct. To be held liable, an actor must not only intend to make contact but must also intend for that contact to be harmful or offensive. The court adopted the dual intent requirement from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which states an actor is liable for battery if they act 'intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact.' This standard was previously applied to children in Colorado in Horton v. Reaves, and the court extends that reasoning to adults with mental incapacities. The court clarified that mental deficiency is not an affirmative defense, but rather a characteristic that affects the plaintiff's ability to prove the requisite intent. The jury must consider the defendant's mental state to determine if she could have formed the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Colorado's adoption of the 'dual intent' standard for battery, rejecting the 'single intent' rule followed by some other jurisdictions. It aligns the legal treatment of mentally incapacitated adults with that of very young children concerning the specific intent required for intentional torts. This ruling raises the bar for plaintiffs suing individuals with severe cognitive disabilities like Alzheimer's for intentional torts, as it requires proof that the defendant subjectively understood their action was offensive. Consequently, this may encourage plaintiffs in similar situations to pursue negligence claims instead, where the focus is on the standard of care rather than subjective intent.
Unlock the full brief for White v. Muniz