Picard v. Barry Pontiac Buick, Inc.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1995 · Torts

TortsAssaultBatteryCausationDamagesassaultbatteryreasonable apprehension

Facts

Plaintiff brought her car to Kent's Alignment after a dispute over brake inspection, and a Barry Pontiac employee, the defendant, arrived to inspect the brakes. Plaintiff attempted to photograph defendant, and after the picture was taken defendant approached her, protested the photograph, and at minimum made contact with the camera in plaintiff's hand; plaintiff testified more broadly that he grabbed her shoulders and they wrestled. Plaintiff later claimed back and leg injuries and relied on her doctor's affidavits and letters to prove causation and permanency, although the doctor had not examined her for five and one-half years and his statements about permanency were inconsistent. The trial court found assault and battery and awarded compensatory and punitive damages.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove assault and battery, whether plaintiff presented competent proof that defendant's conduct caused her claimed physical injuries, and whether the compensatory and punitive damage awards could stand. The case also asked whether contact with a camera held by the plaintiff could constitute a battery.

Rule

An assault is a physical act of a threatening nature or an offer of corporal injury that puts a person in reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm. A battery is an intended offensive contact with or unconsented touching of another's body, and intent to injure is unnecessary if the defendant willfully sets in motion a force that ordinarily causes the contact; intentional contact with an object so intimately connected with the body as to be regarded as part of the person is sufficient. When medical proof is offered by affidavit in place of live testimony, the affidavit must still satisfy the minimum requirements of competent medical evidence and must be clear and unambiguous as to diagnosis, causation, and prognosis. Punitive damages are permitted only upon proof of malice or bad faith.

🔒

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 community theater in Providence, Nina Torres complained to stage manager Owen Pike about a billing dispute. Owen jabbed his finger toward Nina, strode quickly across the room in her direction, and shouted, "You'd better stop talking right now," stopping a step away without touching her. Nina immediately backed away and testified that she feared he was about to hit her.

Nina's strongest tort claim is for

Explanation. Assault is a physical act of a threatening nature or an offer of corporal injury that puts the plaintiff in reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm. Owen's advancing toward Nina while pointing and shouting could reasonably create apprehension of immediate harm, even though no touching occurred. Battery requires offensive contact, which is absent here.