Janelsins v. Button

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1994 · Torts

TortsBatteryConsentAssumption of RiskPunitive Damagesintentional tortbatteryintent

Facts

Button worked as a bar back at the Manor Tavern. After Janelsins became heavily intoxicated, the tavern owner instructed Button to help escort him to his car, and several patrons agreed to drive Janelsins home. When Button and others tried to place Janelsins into the back seat, Janelsins resisted, shouted obscenities and threats, and kicked Button in the face as Button tried to put Janelsins's legs into the car. Button lost a tooth as a result.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of civil battery and whether Button's conduct barred recovery because he consented to the contact or assumed the risk of being injured. On the cross-appeal, the court also considered whether the trial court erred in denying punitive damages.

Rule

A battery is the unpermitted application of trauma by one person upon the body of another and requires intent to bring about a harmful or offensive contact; accidental or inadvertent contact is not enough. Consent, if proved, negates the wrongful element of battery, but assumption of risk is not a viable defense to a civil battery action. Voluntary intoxication does not vitiate the intent element of battery, and the trier of fact has discretion to deny punitive damages even where the record could support such an award.

🔒

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 music festival in Austin, Trevor Sloan became enraged when security volunteer Nina Patel tried to guide him away from a restricted gate. Trevor shouted, "Touch me again and I'll break your nose," then jerked his body around and slammed his elbow into Nina's cheek, fracturing it.

If Nina sues Trevor for civil battery, what is the strongest basis for finding the intent element satisfied?

Explanation. Battery requires an unpermitted harmful or offensive contact and intent to bring about that contact. The majority opinion explained that intent may be inferred from conduct such as threats and flailing or striking movements aimed at the plaintiff. The plaintiff need not show intent to cause the exact injury suffered, and malice is not required for compensatory battery liability.