Spivey v. Battaglia

Supreme Court of Florida · 1972 · Torts

TortsIntentional TortsNegligenceBatteryIntentsubstantial certaintyintent vs negligenceassault and battery

Facts

The plaintiff and defendant were coworkers seated with other employees on a work table during lunch at their workplace. To tease the plaintiff, whom he knew to be shy, the defendant intentionally put his arm around her and pulled her head toward him in a "friendly unsolicited hug." Immediately afterward, the plaintiff felt sharp pain in her neck, ear, and skull area, and she became paralyzed on the left side of her face and mouth. The plaintiffs brought claims for negligence and assault and battery.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff's action could proceed on a negligence theory, or whether the defendant's conduct amounted to assault and battery as a matter of law, making the suit time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations.

Rule

For assault or battery, the relevant intent does not require hostility or a desire to harm, but it does require that a reasonable person would believe the result was substantially certain to follow from the act. Mere knowledge and appreciation of a risk, short of substantial certainty, is not the equivalent of intent; that level of fault sounds in negligence. A defendant may still be liable in negligence for reasonably foreseeable consequences even if the exact result or extent of damage was not contemplated.

🔒

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 print shop in Columbus, Ohio, Owen Mercer playfully flicked the back of coworker Lina Patel's ear to make her jump during a lunch break. Lina immediately felt intense pain and later learned she had suffered an unusual nerve injury that partially impaired her hearing.

If Lina sues, which is the strongest characterization of Owen's conduct under the governing rule?

Explanation. The rule turns on whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would believe the particular result was substantially certain to follow. Intent for battery does not require hostility, but neither does every intentional touching establish battery for all resulting injuries. Where the defendant merely engages in playful contact and the severe injury is unusual rather than substantially certain, the conduct sounds in negligence, not battery as a matter of law.