McGuire v. Almy

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 1937 · Torts

TortsAssault and batteryInsanityinsane personintentional tortassault and batteryintentcivil liability

Facts

The plaintiff, a registered nurse, was employed to care for the defendant, whom she knew was a mental case and who had previously shown hostility and occasional violence. On the day of the incident, while locked in her room, the defendant had a violent attack, broke furniture, and threatened to kill the plaintiff and the maid if they entered. After seeing the destruction and fearing the defendant might harm herself with the broken furniture, the plaintiff entered the room and approached the defendant, who was holding a furniture leg raised as if to strike. When the plaintiff tried to take the defendant's hand, the defendant struck the plaintiff on the head with the furniture leg, causing the injuries sued upon.

Issue

Should the defendant have received a directed verdict on the ground that an insane person is not liable for this assault and battery, or because the plaintiff consented to or assumed the risk of the injury by undertaking the defendant's care and entering the room despite the threat?

Rule

Where an insane person by her act does intentional damage to the person or property of another, she is liable for that damage in the same circumstances in which a normal person would be liable. If a particular intent is necessary, the insane person must have been capable of entertaining that intent and must in fact have entertained it, but the law will not further inquire into her mental condition to excuse her because delusion or other effects of insanity caused that intent.

🔒

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.

In Portland, Maine, Lena Ortiz was caring for her uncle, Victor Shaw, during a psychotic episode. Victor pointed a fireplace poker at Lena, shouted, "I’m going to crack your skull," and then swung it at her when she stepped closer to calm him, breaking her arm.

If Lena sues Victor for battery, which is the strongest argument against directing a verdict for Victor based solely on his insanity?

Explanation. The majority held that an insane person is liable for intentional damage in the same circumstances as a normal person if the defendant was capable of entertaining the required intent and actually entertained it. The law does not further excuse the act merely because insanity or delusion produced that intent. Threatening language and an intentional blow support sending the case to the jury.