Wagner v. Utah Department of Human Servs.

2005 UT 54, 122 P.3d 599 (Sup.Ct.)

 

RULE:

The only intent required to commit a battery is the intent to make a contact, not an intent to harm, injure, or offend through that contact. So long as the actor intended the contact, it is immaterial that the actor is not inspired by any personal hostility to the other, or a desire to injure him. The actor will be liable for battery even if he honestly but erroneously believed that the other has, in fact, consented to the contact. In fact, even a healing contact motivated by a helpful intent, as in an act of medical assistance, is actionable as a battery if the actor did not in fact have permission to make the contact. The linchpin to liability for battery is not a guilty mind, but rather an intent to make a contact the law forbids. The actor need not appreciate that his contact is forbidden; he need only intend the contact, and the contact must, in fact, be forbidden.

FACTS:

As she stood in line in a store, plaintiff injured party was attacked by a mentally disabled patient. Plaintiff alleged that the patient was not properly supervised by defendant governmental entities. Defendants asserted their immunity from liability for intentional torts. Plaintiff argued that the attack could not legally constitute a battery because that tort required the patient to intend harm or offense through his deliberate contact, an intent the patient was mentally incompetent to form. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint under Utah R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Utah Court of Appeals found that the dismissal was proper. The supreme court affirmed the appellate court's decision to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim.

ISSUE:

Did the attack by the mentally disabled patient to plaintiff injured party constitute battery for which defendant governmental entities were immune from liability?

ANSWER:

Yes.

CONCLUSION:

Only intent to make contact was necessary, and the attack constituted a battery. The fact that plaintiff injured party alleged that the patient could not have intended to harm her or understood that his attack would inflict injury or offense was not relevant to the analysis of whether a battery occurred. So long as the patient intended to make contact and so long as that contact was one to which the injured party had not given her consent, the patient committed a battery. Finally, battery was a tort for which the State had retained immunity pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-10(2) (1997) (repealed 2004).

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.