Lexplug logoLexplug

White v. University of Idaho

Idaho Supreme Court
118 Idaho 400, 797 P.2d 108 (1990)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In Idaho, the tort of battery requires only the intent to make a non-consensual contact that is harmful or offensive, not a specific intent to cause harm or offense.


Facts:

  • Professor Richard Neher and Carol White were acquaintances with a shared interest in piano.
  • Neher was a social guest at the Whites' home on the day of the incident.
  • While Mrs. White was seated at a counter, Neher approached her from behind without warning.
  • Neher touched Mrs. White's back with both hands in a movement he described as similar to a pianist striking keys.
  • Neher stated he intended to demonstrate a sensation related to piano playing and did not intend to harm or offend her.
  • Mrs. White did not consent to the contact, was surprised by it, and found it offensive.
  • The contact caused Mrs. White to suffer severe and unexpected physical injuries, including thoracic outlet syndrome, requiring surgery.

Procedural Posture:

  • Carol and Kenneth White sued the University of Idaho and Professor Richard Neher in a state district court for tort damages.
  • The University of Idaho moved for summary judgment, arguing it was immune from liability under the Idaho Tort Claims Act because Neher's act was a battery.
  • The district court granted partial summary judgment for the University of Idaho, dismissing the claim against it.
  • The Whites (appellants) appealed the district court's decision to the Idaho Court of Appeals.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment.
  • The Whites (petitioners) then petitioned the Idaho Supreme Court for review, which was granted.

Locked

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 non-consensual contact that results in harm constitute a battery when the actor intended to make the contact but did not intend for the contact to be harmful or offensive?


Opinions:

Majority - Bakes, C.J.

Yes, the contact constituted a battery. The intent element for the tort of battery in Idaho is satisfied if the actor's affirmative act causes an intended contact which is unpermitted and which is harmful or offensive; it does not require a desire or purpose to bring about a specific injury. The court's precedent in Rajspic v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. established that the only intent necessary to prove a civil battery is an intent to do the act, not an intent to do harm or cause offense. In that case, the court approved a jury instruction stating that 'the intent referred to is the intent to do the act complained of.' Because Professor Neher stipulated that he intended to touch Mrs. White's back, his action constituted a battery, regardless of his harmless motive. Therefore, the University of Idaho is immune from liability under the Idaho Tort Claims Act's exception for claims arising out of battery.


Dissenting - Bistline, J.

No, the contact should be considered negligence, not a battery. The majority's definition distorts the common meaning of 'battery,' which implies violence or injurious intent, and misinterprets the legislative intent behind the Idaho Tort Claims Act. The legislature likely intended to grant immunity for malicious or criminal acts, not for unintentional harms resulting from a non-malicious, intended touching. Relying on an insurance case involving insanity is out of context and poor precedent. The better approach, followed by numerous other jurisdictions, is to distinguish battery from negligence based on the actor's intent to inflict injury. By defining any intended, unconsented touch as a battery, the majority allows the exception for battery to swallow the general rule of governmental liability for negligence.



Analysis:

This decision establishes a broad definition of battery in Idaho, focusing solely on the intent to make contact rather than the actor's motive or intent to cause a specific result. This ruling significantly impacts tort law, particularly in cases involving governmental immunity. By expanding what constitutes a 'battery,' the decision broadens the scope of claims from which governmental entities are immune under the Idaho Tort Claims Act, potentially barring recovery for plaintiffs whose claims might otherwise be framed as negligence. Future cases involving unintended harm from intentional contact will now clearly fall under the battery exception, shielding government employees and entities from liability.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: White v. University of Idaho (1990)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"