Paul v. Holbrook

696 So. 2d 1311 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997

Facts

Meredith A. Paul and Paul Holbrook were co-workers at Professional Medical Products, Inc. (PMP), with Holbrook not being Paul's supervisor. Paul alleged that Holbrook harassed her on various occasions by asking her to wear revealing clothing and suggesting sexual relations. On two separate occasions, Holbrook approached Paul from behind while she was working and attempted to massage her shoulders. Each time, Paul immediately pulled away and told Holbrook to stop, which he did. After Paul complained to PMP's management, she and Holbrook were no longer scheduled to work the same shifts, and his improper behavior toward her ceased.

Procedural history

Meredith A. Paul appealed an order from the trial court that granted summary judgment in favor of Paul Holbrook and Professional Medical Products, Inc. on her claims. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, affirmed the entry of summary judgment in all respects except for the battery claim against Holbrook. On that single claim, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue

Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment on Paul's battery claim against Holbrook by concluding that Holbrook's contact was merely a "casual touching" and that Paul failed to produce evidence establishing intent?

Holding

Yes, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment on the battery claim against Holbrook, finding that offensiveness and intent were questions for the trier of fact.

Rule

A battery consists of the infliction of a harmful or offensive contact upon another with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent. Offensiveness is an essential element of battery, and the test for offensiveness is what would be offensive to an ordinary person not unduly sensitive to personal dignity, considering the time, place, circumstances, and relations between the parties. Proof of intent to commit battery is rarely subject to direct proof but must be established based on surrounding circumstances, and no evidence of an intention to cause harm is necessary.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.