White v. Muniz

Supreme Court of Colorado · 2000 · Torts

TortsIntentional tortsBatteryAssaultIntentMental incapacitybatteryassault

Facts

Helen Everly, an eighty-three-year-old resident of an assisted living facility, began exhibiting agitation and occasional aggression shortly after admission. When shift supervisor Sherry Lynn Muniz attempted to change Everly's adult diaper after Everly initially resisted, Everly struck Muniz on the jaw and ordered her out of the room. The next day, a physician diagnosed Everly with progressive dementia of the Alzheimer type, including loss of memory, impulse control, and judgment. At trial on Muniz's assault and battery claims, the court instructed the jury that Everly had to have appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct, and the jury returned a verdict for the defense.

Issue

In an assault and battery action, must the plaintiff prove only that the defendant intended the contact, or must the plaintiff also prove that the defendant intended the contact to be harmful or offensive? Relatedly, does a mentally incapacitated adult avoid liability only if she lacked that intent, rather than through a separate insanity defense?

Rule

For the intentional torts of assault and battery in Colorado, regardless of the defendant's characteristics, the plaintiff must prove that the actor intended to make the contact and intended that the contact be harmful or offensive. The plaintiff need not prove that the actor intended the precise harm that actually resulted, but the actor must have desired harmful or offensive consequences or known with substantial certainty that such consequences would occur.

🔒

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 art fair in Santa Fe, Nolan Price spun around quickly to greet a friend and his hand struck Vera Lin's face. Vera sues Nolan for battery, and the evidence shows Nolan meant to turn and make physical contact with whoever was behind him but did not realize the contact would be harmful or offensive.

Under Colorado's rule for battery, is Vera most likely to prevail?

Explanation. Colorado follows a dual-intent rule for battery. The plaintiff must prove the actor intended to make the contact and intended the contact to be harmful or offensive. It is not enough that the defendant intended contact and the contact later turned out to be offensive or harmful. But the plaintiff need not show intent to cause the precise injury that occurred.