Snyder v. Turk

Ohio Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District · Torts

Tortsbatteryintentional infliction of emotional distressslanderdirected verdictqualified privilegebatteryoffensive contact

Facts

During a gall bladder operation, Dr. Turk became frustrated with the procedure, the instruments, and scrub nurse Barbara Snyder's performance. Snyder testified that Turk insulted her during the surgery, threw back a right-angle clamp she handed him, then grabbed her shoulder and gown and pulled her from a standing position down toward the surgical wound while yelling that he needed long instruments. Snyder testified she was shocked, scared, and humiliated, but also testified that she suffered no physical injury from the contact. She further testified that Turk made additional statements in the operating room calling her incompetent and saying she was only there for a paycheck.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in directing a verdict for Dr. Turk on Snyder's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, and slander. More specifically, the court considered whether Snyder's evidence was sufficient for reasonable minds to find outrageous conduct and serious emotional distress, an intentional offensive contact constituting battery, and slander not conclusively shielded by qualified privilege.

Rule

On a motion for directed verdict, the court must assume the truth of the evidence supporting the essential facts of the claim, give the nonmovant the benefit of all reasonable inferences, and apply a reasonable-minds test. For battery, liability exists when the actor intends to cause a harmful or offensive contact, or an imminent apprehension of such contact, and an offensive or harmful contact directly or indirectly results; proof of intent to inflict personal injury is not required. For slander, even where a qualified privilege may apply, factual questions such as good faith and whether the privilege was abused or exceeded are for the jury.

🔒

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 restaurant kitchen in Columbus, chef Nolan Price became irritated when line cook Eva Mendez handed him the wrong pan. In front of the staff, Nolan seized Eva by the upper arm and yanked her sideways toward the stove while shouting for the correct cookware; Eva suffered no physical injury but felt humiliated.

If Eva sues Nolan for battery and Nolan moves for a directed verdict solely because Eva cannot prove he intended to injure her, how should the court rule?

Explanation. A directed verdict is improper if reasonable minds could find the defendant intended an offensive contact and such contact resulted. The governing rule is that battery does not require intent to inflict personal injury; intent to cause harmful or offensive contact is enough. Nolan's grabbing and yanking could reasonably be found offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity, so the claim should go to the jury. (Derived from Snyder v. Turk (n.d.).)