Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel

Supreme Court of Texas · Torts

TortsBatteryExemplary damagesVicarious liabilitybatteryoffensive contactobject held in handmental suffering

Facts

Fisher attended a luncheon at the defendants' club after accepting an invitation connected to a telemetry equipment meeting at the Carrousel. As Fisher stood in the buffet line, Flynn, the manager of the Brass Ring Club and an employee of the Carrousel, snatched the plate from Fisher's hand and shouted that Fisher, a Negro, could not be served there. Fisher testified that Flynn did not touch his body and that he did not fear physical injury, but he was highly embarrassed and hurt in front of his associates. The jury found that Flynn forcibly dispossessed Fisher of the plate, acted maliciously, and caused Fisher humiliation and indignity.

Issue

Did Flynn commit a battery by intentionally snatching a plate from Fisher's hand in an offensive manner even though there was no bodily contact or apprehension of physical injury? If so, could the corporate defendants be held liable for both actual damages for mental suffering and exemplary damages based on Flynn's conduct?

Rule

A battery may be committed without assault and without direct bodily contact if the defendant intentionally makes offensive contact with clothing or an object closely identified with the plaintiff's person, including an object directly grasped in the plaintiff's hand. In a willful battery action, mental suffering damages may be recovered without proof of physical injury. A principal is liable for exemplary damages for an agent's act if one of the following disjunctive conditions is met: the principal authorized the act and its manner, the agent was unfit and the principal was reckless in employing him, the agent was employed in a managerial capacity and acted within the scope of employment, or the employer or a manager ratified or approved the act.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a trade fair in Dallas, event supervisor Nolan Price became irritated when attendee Serena Kim stepped into a priority line. Nolan seized the conference program directly from Serena’s hand and flung it onto a nearby table while berating her, but never touched her body.

Serena sues Nolan for battery. Which is the best answer?

Explanation. Battery does not require direct bodily contact if the defendant intentionally and offensively contacts an object closely identified with the plaintiff’s person, including something directly grasped in the hand. Fear of harm is relevant to assault, not necessary for battery. Physical injury is not required where the offensive invasion itself is intentional and unpermitted. (Derived from Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel (n.d.).)