Spivey v Battaglia Case Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

Intentional Torts case brief for Battery...

Description

Case Name

Spivey v. Battaglia

Court & Date

Supreme Court of Florida, 1972.

Procedural History

Petitioner (Spivey i.e. Plaintiff) petitioned the court for (1) negligence and (2) assault and battery against respondent (Battaglia i.e. Defendant). Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida affirmed on the authority of McDonald v Ford.

Questioned Presented (The Issue)

Is this case to be heard on the basis of negligence count or is this an assault and battery case which would bar the suit under the two-year statute?

Trigger Facts

Defendant embraced the plaintiff in a “friendly unsolicited hug”. Immediately following, plaintiff suffered a sharp pain in the back of her neck and ear, and sharp pains into the base of her skull causing paralysis on the left side of her face and mouth.

Plaintiffs argument(s)

Defendant, in an effort to tease plaintiff, put his arm around her, and pulled her head toward him. Plaintiff immediately suffered a sharp pain in the back of her neck and ear, and sharp pains in base of skull leaving her paralyzed on the left side of her face and mouth, after this “friendly unsolicited hug.”

Defendant's Argument(s)

Defendant claims that his “friendly unsolicited hug” was an assault and battery as a matter of law and was barred by the running of the two – year statue of limitations.

Rule (The Law)

Assault and battery are not negligence. Intentional action is required for an assault and battery, while negligence connotes an unintentional act. Intent as assault is concerned is not necessarily meant to cause harm, but rather where a reasonable person would believe that a particular result was substantially certain to follow.

Reasoning

Negligence is a relative term and depends on each cases particular circumstances which surrounded the parties. It cannot be said that a reasonable man in this defendant’s position would believe that the hug would result in injury with substantial certainty. This conclusion is unreasonable and a misapplication of the rule in McDonald. This does not mean that the defendant is not liable for reasonably foreseeable consequences.

Holding

The decision of the district court is quashed and the cause is remanded with directions to reverse final judgement.

Main Take Away

Intention requires substantial certainty. Negligence connotes an unintentional act....