White v. University of Idaho

Supreme Court of Idaho · 1990 · Torts

TortsBatteryGovernmental ImmunityIntentional Tortsbatteryintentunpermitted contactgovernmental immunity

Facts

Carol and Kenneth White sued the University of Idaho and Professor Richard Neher, alleging that Neher, acting within the course and scope of his employment, struck Mrs. White and caused serious injuries. While a social guest in the Whites' home, Neher intentionally touched Mrs. White's back from behind with both hands in a movement he said was meant to demonstrate a pianist's sensation, not to cause harm. Mrs. White testified the touching was unexpected, non-consensual, and offensive, and that she would not have consented. On appeal, the parties stipulated that Neher intended to touch Mrs. White but did not intend to harm or offend her.

Issue

Whether Professor Neher's intentional but non-harmful, non-offensive-in-purpose touching of Mrs. White constituted a battery under Idaho law. If so, the University would be immune from liability under Idaho Code § 6-904(3) for claims arising out of battery.

Rule

In Idaho, the intent required for civil battery is the intent to do the act or make the contact complained of; the defendant need not intend that the contact be harmful or offensive. A battery is established where the actor's affirmative act causes an intended, unpermitted contact that is harmful or offensive, and a governmental entity is immune from claims arising out of such a battery under Idaho Code § 6-904(3).

🔒

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 state-operated arts academy in Boise, piano instructor Lena Ortiz intentionally presses two fingers into visitor Mara Jensen's upper back to illustrate hand posture during a tour. Lena means only to demonstrate technique, but Mara had not consented and later alleges the contact was offensive and caused physical pain.

Under Idaho law as stated by the majority, which is the strongest argument that the academy is immune from Mara's claim?

Explanation. The majority held that for civil battery in Idaho, the required intent is the intent to do the act or make the contact complained of, not an intent to cause harm or offense. If the employee intentionally made an unpermitted contact that was harmful or offensive, the claim arises out of battery, and the governmental entity is immune under Idaho Code section 6-904(3). (Derived from White v. University of Idaho (n.d.).)