White v. Muniz
999 P.2d 814 · Supreme Court of Colorado · 2000
Facts
Helen Everly, an 83-year-old with Alzheimer's, struck caregiver Sherry Lynn Muniz while Muniz was changing her diaper. Muniz sued Everly for assault and battery, and the trial court instructed the jury that Everly must have appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct to be liable, leading to a verdict for Everly. The court of appeals reversed, holding that mentally deficient individuals are liable for intentional acts regardless of their ability to understand wrongfulness.
Issue
Does the element of 'intent' in an intentional tort, specifically assault and battery, require that a mentally incapacitated adult appreciate the offensiveness of her conduct, or only that she intended the physical contact?
Holding
The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, reinstating the jury verdict in favor of Everly. It held that for an intentional tort, the plaintiff must prove the actor intended both the contact and that the contact be harmful or offensive.
Rule
For intentional torts of assault and battery, a plaintiff must prove that the actor desired to cause offensive or harmful consequences by their act. A mentally incapacitated person can be liable, but the jury must find they possessed this 'dual intent' and appreciated the offensiveness of their conduct, similar to the standard applied to children.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.