Fisher v Carrousel Motor Hotel PDF

Preview

Summary

case brief - torts I- professor brown-2021 fall...

Description

Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc. 1. Case Name: Fisher (P) v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc. (D) (p. 36) 2. Court & Date: Supreme Court of Texas, 1967. 3. Procedural History: (p. 36) The jury at the trial court returned a verdict for $400 actual damages for the plaintiff’s humiliation and indignity, and $500 exemplary (punitive) damages in addition. The trial court set aside the verdict and gave judgment for the defendants notwithstanding the verdict, which was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas. 4. Questions Presented: (p. 36) Whether the intentional snatching of an object from one’s hand is an offensive invasion of his person. 5. Trigger Facts: (p. 36) Fisher, the plaintiff, was a NASA mathematician attending a conference at the defendant’s hotel. The conference included a buffet luncheon. As the plaintiff was standing in line with others, he was approached by one of the defendant’s employees, who snatched the plate from his hand, and shouted that a ‘‘Negro could not be served in the club.’’ The defendant’s employee never actually touched the plaintiff’s body, and the plaintiff was never in apprehension of injury despite being embarrassed in front of his colleagues. The plaintiff sued the hotel for damages. 6. Plaintiff’s Argument: (pp. 36-37) The plaintiff seemed to argue that the snatching of the plate from his hand was sufficient to establish the “to plaintiff’s person” requirement of a valid battery claim. 7. Defendant’s Argument: (pp. 36-37) The defendant seemed to argue that the snatching of the plate from the plaintiff’s hand was not a sufficient contact “to plaintiff’s person” to establish a valid battery claim. 8. Rule: (pp. 36-37) To establish a valid battery or assault claim, it is not necessary to touch the plaintiff’s body or even his clothing. Instead, knocking or snatching anything from the plaintiff’s hand or touching anything connected with his person, when done in a harmful or offensive manner, is sufficient. 9. Reasoning: (p. 37) The defendant’s forceful snatching of the plaintiff’s plate in an offensive manner was sufficient to constitute a valid battery claim. 10. Holding: (p. 36) The intentional snatching of an object from one’s hand is as clearly an offensive invasion of his person as would be an actual contact with the body. 11. Main Takeaway: According to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 18, there are some things (e.g., clothing or a cane) that are so intimately connected with one’s body as to be universally regarded as part of the person.

12. Other Notes: (p. 37) Damages for mental suffering are recoverable without the necessity for showing actual physical injury in a case of willful battery because the basis of that action is the unpermitted and intentional invasion of the plaintiff’s person and not the actual harm done to the plaintiff’s body...