Picard v. Barry Pontiac-Buick, Inc.
654 A.2d 690 · Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1995
Facts
Victorie A. Picard brought her mother's car to Barry Pontiac-Buick for a signal light repair and inspection. After the car failed inspection there but passed at Kent's Alignment, Picard contacted a TV news reporter. Barry Pontiac then requested Kent's Alignment re-check the car, claiming the brakes were bad. On January 27, 1987, Picard returned to Kent's, where Barry Pontiac employee Jesse Silvia arrived to inspect the brakes. Picard attempted to photograph Silvia, who then allegedly "lunged" at her and "grabbed [her] around the shoulders," leading to a physical altercation. Picard later experienced leg pain, which she attributed to the incident, despite a history of back problems.
Procedural history
The case began with a judgment against Jesse Silvia in the Superior Court for assault and battery, awarding compensatory and punitive damages. Silvia appealed this judgment to the Supreme Court, arguing failure to prove assault and battery, failure to prove causation, and excessive damages. The Supreme Court affirmed the assault and battery finding but sustained the appeal regarding damages, vacating the awards and remanding the case to the Superior Court for a new trial on damages.
Issue
Did the plaintiff present sufficient evidence to prove assault and battery? Was the medical evidence competent to establish that the defendant's actions proximately caused the plaintiff's alleged injuries? Were the awards for compensatory and punitive damages excessive or inappropriate as a matter of law?
Holding
Yes, the plaintiff proved assault and battery. No, the medical evidence was not competent to establish causation. Yes, the awards for compensatory and punitive damages were excessive and inappropriate. The court affirmed the judgment for assault and battery but vacated the damages awards and remanded for a new trial on damages.
Rule
An assault is a physical act of a threatening nature that puts an individual in reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm, with the plaintiff's apprehension of injury making the act compensable. A battery is an act intended to cause, and which does cause, an offensive contact with or unconsented touching of another's body, and contact with an object intimately connected with a person (like a camera in hand) is sufficient. For medical testimony to establish causation, it must meet minimum requirements for competence, be "sufficiently clear and unambiguous," and not rely on outdated or inconsistent opinions. Compensatory damages must not be "grossly excessive" or "shock the conscience," and punitive damages require proof of malice, willfulness, recklessness, or wickedness.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.