Wallace v Rosen - case brief - torts I- professor brown-2021 fall PDF

Preview

Summary

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

Description

Wallace v. Rosen 1. Case Name: Wallace (P) v. Rosen (D) (p. 31) 2. Court & Date: Court of Appeals of Indiana, 2002 3. Procedural History: (p. 31) The trial court jury found in favor of Rosen and the school system. Wallace appealed to the Court of Appeals of Indiana. 4. Questions Presented: (p. 31) Whether all unwanted contacts are considered an offensive contact for purposes of establishing a valid battery claim. 5. Trigger Facts: (p. 31) Wallace, the plaintiff, delivered homework to her daughter at school. Wallace was talking to her daughter at the top of some stairs when the fire alarm sounded. Rosen, the defendant and a teacher at the school, was trying to escort her class out of the building when she touched Wallace on the back “to get her attention.” Wallace claimed Rosen pushed her down the stairs and sued Rosen and the school system for damages. Rosen denied pushing Wallace and claimed that Wallace had walked down the stairs unassisted. The court refused to instruct the jury on battery. 6. Plaintiff’s Argument: (p. 31) The plaintiff argued that the defendant made an offensive contact with her when the defendant pushed her down the stairs. 7. Defendant’s Argument: (p. 31) The defendant argued that it was necessary for her to tap the plaintiff on the shoulder to get her attention so that she would no longer block the stairs as the fire alarm sounded. 8. Rule: (pp. 31-32) A person is not liable for an offensive touching that is not rude, insolent, or angry, that occurs in a crowded area where a certain amount of contact is inevitable. A person is not liable for an offensive touching that is not rude, insolent, or angry, that occurs in a crowded area where a certain amount of contact is inevitable. In order for a touching to be sufficiently offensive so as to constitute a battery, it must be offensive to an ordinary person not unduly sensitive as to personal dignity based on the time, place, and circumstances under which the act is done. Offensive contact is judged by an objective standard: what would a reasonable and ordinary person find offensive? 9. Reasoning: (pp. 32-33) Rosen placed her fingertips on Wallace’s back during a fire drill to get her attention. A certain amount of contact with others is inevitable on a crowded stairway during a fire drill. Rosen did not touch Wallace in a rude, angry or insolent manner. Rosen touched Wallace to get her attention over the alarm noise. Accordingly, Rosen is not liable for battery since she did not touch Wallace in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. 10. Holding: (p. 33) Not all unwanted contacts are considered an offensive contact for purposes of establishing a valid battery claim.

11. Main Takeaway: Everyday contacts are not offensive contacts within the meaning of the law. 12. Other Notes: (p. 35, Note 5) Battery is an unauthorized touching, which an ordinary person would find offensive. It makes no difference whether you are conscious or not. Likewise, it makes no difference whether the touching was beneficial or not....