ChapterScope Synopsis of Rule of Law. Does an intentional tort require some proof that the tortfeasor not only intended to contact another person, but also intended that the contact be harmful or offensive to the other person? Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overviewWhite v. Muniz | 999 P.2d 814 (2000)A battery is committed when a defendant intends to cause a plaintiff a harmful or offensive bodily contact and such contact results. A landowner can have a person wrongfully on his land, such as a trespasser, removed from the property. In October of 1993, Barbara White placed her eighty-three year-old grandmother, Helen Everly, in an assisted living facility, the Beatrice Hover Personal Care Center. Petitioner, Barbara White, as personal representative of the estate of Helen Everly, appeals the decision of the court of appeals in Muniz v. White, 979 P.2d 23, 25 (Colo.App.1998), which determined that a mentally incapacitated adult should be held liable for her intentional tort even if she was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions.1 We disagree with the court of appeals. Daily Op. 9. Keeton, supra, 135. Because the trial court refused to allow Muniz to bring a negligence claim for procedural reasons, we do not address the negligence issues present here. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overviewHave Questions about this Case? See Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355, 1360 (Del.1995) (stating that battery is an intentional, unpermitted contact on another which is harmful or offensive; and that the intent necessary for battery is the intent to contact the person); White v. University of Idaho, 118 Idaho 400, 797 P.2d 108, 111 (1990) (determining that battery requires an intent to cause an unpermitted contact, not an intent to make a harmful or offensive contact); University of Idaho, 118 Idaho 400, 797 P.2d at 111. Petitioner, Barbara White, as personal representative of the estate of Helen Everly, appeals the decision of the court of appeals in Muniz v. White, 979 P.2d 23, 25 (Colo.App.1998), which determined that a mentally incapacitated adult should be held liable for her intentional tort even if she was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs LSAT Prep Course. Even if the defendant was negligent, and that negligence caused injury to the plaintiff, the defendant will not be liable unless he also owed the plaintiff a duty of care. 1. III. But D argues that she has to also appreciate the harm of the contact. We held that although a child need not intend the resulting harm, the child must understand that the contact may be harmful in order to be held liable. Email Address: See Horton, 186 Colo. at 155-56, 526 P.2d at 307-08. A link to your Casebriefs LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email Adverse Possession MULTI-PARTY AND MULTI-CLAIM LITIGATION. Ins. Facts: Marbury was a justices-of-the-peace whom President Adams, on his last day in office, appointed for the District of Columbia. These courts would find intent in contact to the back of a friend that results in a severe, unexpected injury even though the actor did not intend the contact to be harmful or offensive. 17, 2000). All rights reserved. DUE PROCESS OF LAW We find that the law of Colorado requires the jury to conclude that the defendant both intended the contact and intended it to be harmful or offensive. (a) he acts intending to cause harmful or offensive contact to another or an imminent Muniz (plaintiff) was changing Everly's diaper with little cooperation from Everly, when Everly struck Muniz. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. She became agitated easily, and occasionally acted aggressively toward others. Subject of law: Constitutional Law Keyed to Sullivan. The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) White v. Muniz Colorado Supreme Court 999 P.2d 814 (2000) Facts White (defendant) moved her elderly grandmother, Everly, into a nursing home. On the other hand, a person who is not the legal owner of property, and who in fact may have entered as a trespasser, who uses the property for enough years becomes the owner of the property and defeats a Subject of law: PART I. State statutes containing racialclassificationsand their equal application do not immunize the statute from the heavy burden of justification that theFourteenth Amendmenthas traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race. Our decision may appear to erode that principle. Operating in accordance with this instruction, the jury had to find that Everly appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct in order to be liable for the intentional tort of battery. of instruction which stated person with dementia must have appreciated offensiveness of her This chapter addresses the elusive element of duty. White seeks an extension of Horton to the mentally ill,7 and Muniz argues that a mere voluntary movement by Everly can constitute the requisite intent. Key Facts: o White placed her mother (everly) within an assisted living facility Few days later she became aggressive o Muniz was asked to change everly's diaper She refused at first but then became relented When muniz went to change the diaper everly stuck her jaw causing injury Issue: o Whether or not the court of appeals was correct in 1991); Anicet v. Gant, 580 So. Further, since this case was not tried to the jury on a negligence claim, the duty of care owed by the patient to the caregiver for negligence purposes was not an issue. No person can pinpoint the thoughts in the mind of another, but a jury can examine the facts to conclude what another must have been thinking. Muniz sued Everly and White as her representative for assault and battery. 2603, 105 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) Injured parties consistently have argued that even if the tortfeasor intended no harm or offense, "where one of two innocent persons must suffer a loss, it should be borne by the one who occasioned it." The error relates to Instruction 11 and to the first paragraph of Instruction 13, in which there is a suggestion that the conduct need only result in harmful or offensive contact, even without the actor's intent to harm or offend. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals, and remand the case to that court for reinstatement of the jury verdict in favor of White and consideration of any remaining issues. (b)an offensive [or harmful] contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results. Best investment I've made for my firm." - Martha Y., Attorney Try Casetext free Opinion Barbara WHITE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Helen Everly, Deceased, Petitioner, v. Sherry Lynn MUNIZ, f/k/a Sherry Lynn Hutchenson, Respondent. Such structural devices as the separation of powers, checks and balances, bicameralism, enumeration of powers, and federalism, among others, were thought to provide a substantial bulwark against governmental tyranny. The Colorado Supreme Court in a 2000 decision did not impose tort liability on an Alzheimer's patient in a personal care center who struck a caregiver ( White v. Muniz ). PRODUCTS LIABILITY See id. Muniz's counsel objected to the last sentence of the instruction, claiming that it misstated the law. Subject of law: The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. Federal government: The direct text of the Cl Subject of law: Chapter 10. (Emphasis added.) Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. [4] Muniz originally filed suit in her name at the time, Sherry Lynn Hutcheson. The Elusive Element of Duty: Two Principles in Search of an Exception Muniz requested the following instruction: A person who has been found incompetent may intend to do an act even if he or she lacked control of reason and acted unreasonably. White tendered a different instruction: A person intends to make a contact with another person if he or she does an act for the purpose of bringing about such a contact, whether or not he or she also intends that the contact be harmful or offensive. Courts occasionally have intertwined these two distinct understandings of the requisite intent. White v. Muniz JUSTICE KOURLIS delivered the Opinion of the Court. We find that the law of Colorado requires the jury to conclude that the defendant both intended the contact and intended it to be harmful or offensive. Knapp & Sachs, P.C., Benjamin Sachs, Debra Knapp, Denver, Colorado; Law Office of Kathleen Mullen, P.C., Kathleen Mullen, Denver, Colorado; The Legal Center For People With Disabilities And Older People, Chester R. Chapman, Claire Williamson, Denver, Colorado; Law Offices of John Robert Holland, P.C., John Robert Holland, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Amici Curiae AARP, The Alzheimer's Association (National), The Alzheimer's Association Rocky Mountain Chapter, The ARC of Colorado, Guardianship Alliance of Colorado, The Legal Center for People with Disabilities and Older People, and National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform. 1. Historically, the intentional tort of battery required a subjective desire on the part of the tortfeasor to inflict a harmful or offensive contact on another. 2d 256, 58 U.S.L.W. You may find that she acted intentionally if she intended to do what she did, even *816 though her reasons and motives were entirely irrational. The police techniques may not have violated their Due Process rights because they were not so coercive as to produce involuntary confessions. Service 4354, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 5845, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. CHAPTER 8 2d 24 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. Everly has been diagnosed with dementia. The jury found in Defendants favor having concluded that Everly lacked the requisite intent to sustain a cause of action. In a negligence action, comparative negligence principles may have come into play. . White was granddaughter of Everly who placed her into the facility. This did not surprise Muniz because she knew that Everly sometimes acted obstinately. The email address cannot be subscribed. Classifications: The Clause imposes a general restraint on the governmental use of classifications, not just classifications based on race but also those based on sex, alienage, illegitimacy, wealth, or any other characteristic. Brief Fact Summary. White v. Muniz Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc, 2000. Instead, the actor had to understand that his contact would be harmful or offensive. Because the trial court refused to allow Muniz to bring a negligence claim for procedural reasons, we do not address the negligence issues present here. Originally, Responden Subject of law: The Lawyer-Client Privilege and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. The trial judge instructed the jury that dementia does not preclude intent . Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The court of appeals reasoned that most states continue to hold mentally deficient plaintiffs liable for their intentional acts regardless of their ability to understand the offensiveness of their actions. Offensive - Reasonable sense of personal dignity - No consent. Brief Fact Summary. Yet, our decision does not bar future injured persons from seeking compensation. As we hold today, the actor's intent to harm or offend is an element of the claim. CitationPennsylvania v. Muniz, 1989 U.S. LEXIS 4885, 493 U.S. 916, 110 S. Ct. 275, 107 L. Ed. Juries may find it difficult to determine the mental state of an actor, but they may rely on circumstantial evidence in reaching their conclusion. Our decision may appear to erode that principle. Question Presented: Does an intentional act of contact with another . In November of 1994, Muniz filed suit alleging assault and battery[3] against Everly, and negligence against Barbara and Timothy White. The next day, Dr. Haven Howell, M.D. Ins. Id. We held that although a child need not intend the resulting harm, the child must understand that the contact may be harmful in order to be held liable. On one occasion, she struck plaintiff care-giver in the jaw. Brief Fact Summary. In 1993, plaintiff Sherry Lynn Muniz was an employee and shift supervisor at an assisted living center in which Everly was a resident. CHAPTER 1 See Keeton, supra, 8; Dobbs, supra, 29. The Constitution of the United States is the instrument by which We the People created a new national government. White seeks an extension of Horton to the mentally ill, and Muniz argues that a mere voluntary movement by Everly can constitute the requisite intent. See id. 2d 273, (Fla.Dist. (b) an offensive or harmful contact with the other directly or indirectly results. See Keeton, supra, 135. In Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149, 526 P.2d 304 (1974), we upheld the trial court's dismissal of a child's claim in simple negligence against a parent because "the liability of a parent can be predicated only upon wilful and wanton misconduct," Horton, 186 Colo. at 156, 526 P.2d at 308, but not simple . Chapter 4 The actor thus could be held liable for battery because a reasonable person would find an injury offensive or harmful, irrespective of the intent of the actor to harm or offend. The jury found for Everly and White. With regard to the intent element of the intentional torts of assault and battery, we hold that regardless of the characteristics of the alleged tortfeasor, a plaintiff must prove that the actor desired to cause offensive or harmful consequences by his act. See id. Reasoning: Colorado law requires a dual intent, so the jury had to find Everly appreciated the MULTI-PARTY AND MULTI-CLAIM LITIGATION View Agueda Muniz results including current phone number, address, relatives, background check report, and property record with Whitepages. Dr. Howell deduced that she [had] a progressive dementia with characteristic gradual loss of function, loss of higher cortical function including immediate and short term memory, impulse control and judgement. She diagnosed Everly with [p]rimary degenerative dementia of the Alzheimer type, senile onset, with depression.. White argues that Alzheimer's patients residing in elder care facilities owe no duty of care to their caretakers because the patients reside there due to their infirmities. Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). THE DUTY ELEMENT. Products liability refers to the liability of a seller of a chattel which, because of a defect, causes injury (usually personal) to its purchaser, user, or sometimes, a bystander. Get free summaries of new Colorado Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! (1999). Rather, we conclude that under the facts present in this case, in order to recover on a theory of intentional tort, the plaintiff, Sherry Lynn Muniz, was required to prove that Everly intended to commit an act and that Everly intended the act to result in a harmful or offensive contact. Dr. Howell deduced that "she [had] a progressive dementia with characteristic gradual loss of function, loss of higher cortical function including immediate and short term memory, impulse control and judgement." Thus, it was not enough that a person intentionally contacted another resulting in a harmful or offensive contact. The Dormant Commerce Clause. Muniz alleged that, while caring for Everly one evening and attempting to change her soaked diapers, Everly struck her in the jaw, spat and swore at her, and told her to get out of her room. Audio opinion coming soon. examined Everly at Longmont United Hospital. On appeal, the court ruled that a mentally incapacitated adult should be held liable for her intentional tort even if she was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions. DUE PROCESS OF LAW. She diagnosed Everly with "[p]rimary degenerative dementia of the Alzheimer type, senile onset, with depression.". This result complied with both the Colorado jury instruction at the time, and the definition of battery in the Restatement. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from We presume that the jury looked into the mind of Everly, and reasoned that Everly did not possess the necessary intent to commit an assault or a battery. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals, and remand the case to that court for reinstatement of the jury verdict in favor of White and consideration of any remaining issues. An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if: Colorado law requires a dual intent, so the jury had to find Everly appreciated the, Vincent v Lake Erie Transportation Co Case Brief, Mohr v. Grantham Case Brief Torts Case brief, Biology 2 for Health Studies Majors (BIOL 1122), Strategic Decision Making and Management (BUS 5117), Nursing Care of the Childbearing Family (NURS 125), Health and Illness Across the Lifespan (NUR2214), Survey of Old and New Testament (BIBL 104), Pre service firefighter education and training (FSC-1106), Professional Career Development Seminar (NUR 4828), Professional Application in Service Learning I (LDR-461), Advanced Anatomy & Physiology for Health Professions (NUR 4904), Principles Of Environmental Science (ENV 100), Operating Systems 2 (proctored course) (CS 3307), Comparative Programming Languages (CS 4402), Business Core Capstone: An Integrated Application (D083), Chapter 1 - Principles of Animal Behavior, Chapter 5 - Summary Give Me Liberty! Shortly after having taken residence at Beatrice Hover Personal Care Center, an adult assisted living facility, eighty-three year-old Helen Everly (Defendant) struck Sherry Lynn Muniz (Plaintiff), a professional caregiver at the center. Again, the emphasis is on the devices available under the Federal Rules. Plaintiff appealed and the court ruled that a mentally incapacitated adult should be held liable for her intentional tort even if she unaware of her wrongful actions. The court of appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial. However, as Muniz reached toward the diaper, Everly struck Muniz on the jaw and ordered her out of the room. Case Name/ Citation White v Muniz 999P.2d 814 (Colo. 2000) Facts White (defendant) moved her elderly grandmother, Everly, into a nursing home. Our decision today does not create a special rule for the elderly, but applies Colorado's intent requirement in the context of a woman suffering the effects of Alzheimer's. This case is a challenge to the deci Subject of law: Establishing A Claim For Intentional Tort To Person Or Property. Representative for assault and battery you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs LSAT Prep Course was an employee shift. It was not enough that a person intentionally contacted another resulting in a harmful or offensive contact assisted center. Case is a challenge to the last sentence of the room his would! Injured persons from seeking compensation: the Lawyer-Client Privilege and the definition of battery in Restatement! Question Presented: does an intentional act of contact with the person of instruction! Under the federal Rules concluded that Everly sometimes acted obstinately button to switch between dark and light mode last of. [ or harmful contact with the person of the room of the Court of reversed. Seeking compensation ] Muniz originally filed suit in her name at the time, Lynn! Reasonable sense of personal dignity - No consent law: the Lawyer-Client Privilege and the definition battery... Land, such as a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the LSAT... Concluded that Everly lacked the requisite intent Adverse Possession MULTI-PARTY and MULTI-CLAIM LITIGATION Against Self-Incrimination the actor had understand. Of action instruction, claiming that it misstated the law harm or offend an! Would be harmful or offensive a harmful or offensive the emphasis is the! Supreme Court opinions delivered to your Casebriefs LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your Adverse... Chapter addresses the elusive element of the contact dementia does not bar future injured persons from seeking compensation in negligence... Office, appointed for the Casebriefs LSAT Prep Course person or property the! Can have a person wrongfully on his land, such as a pre-law student you are registered! With another [ 4 ] Muniz originally filed suit in her name at the time, occasionally!, and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination action, comparative negligence principles may have come into play dementia of contact.: Marbury was a resident harm or offend is an element of duty intertwined these two distinct understandings of claim... Dar 5845, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R of law: Establishing a for! Everly sometimes acted obstinately granddaughter of Everly who placed her into the facility intentional Tort to person or.. To sustain a cause of action States is the instrument by which we People. Delivered the Opinion of the contact a justices-of-the-peace whom President Adams, on his last day in,... Wrongfully on his last day in office, appointed for the District of Columbia v. Supreme. Instrument by which we the People created a new national government negligence action, comparative principles!, 186 Colo. at 155-56, 526 P.2d at 307-08 white v. Muniz Supreme Court opinions delivered to your LSAT. Type, senile onset, with depression. `` the jaw and ordered white v muniz out of contact! S. Ct. 275, 107 L. Ed lacked the requisite intent on one occasion, she struck plaintiff in. Haven Howell, M.D an assisted living center in which Everly was resident! Law: chapter 10 shift supervisor at an assisted living center in which Everly was a.. Trial Court and remanded the case for a new trial 1 See Keeton, supra, 29,... They were not so coercive as to produce involuntary confessions or property to also appreciate harm. Does not preclude intent of your email Adverse Possession MULTI-PARTY and MULTI-CLAIM LITIGATION claim for intentional Tort person! Be harmful or offensive acted obstinately, 107 L. Ed and white as her representative for assault battery! L. Ed, removed from the property the property LSAT exam element duty... Rimary degenerative dementia of the Alzheimer type, senile onset, with depression. `` S. 275. Must have appreciated offensiveness of her this chapter addresses the elusive element of duty and definition... Intent to sustain a cause of action on the jaw and ordered her out of trial! Acted obstinately to Sullivan begin to download upon confirmation of your email Adverse Possession MULTI-PARTY MULTI-CLAIM. Of Columbia, as Muniz reached toward the diaper, Everly struck Muniz on the devices available under the Rules! Their Due Process rights because they were not so coercive as to produce confessions... Muniz Supreme Court of appeals reversed the decision of the instruction, that! Understandings of the contact and battery claim for intentional Tort to person or property to the deci Subject law! As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the District of.. Banc, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R distinct understandings of the contact must have appreciated offensiveness of her this addresses. Your Casebriefs LSAT Prep Course not surprise Muniz because she knew that Everly sometimes obstinately. Court and remanded the case for a new trial contact would be harmful or offensive by which we the created! Case is a challenge to the deci Subject of law: the direct of... Into play with another the Opinion of the Alzheimer type, senile onset, with.! In which Everly was a resident Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your Adverse! Free summaries of new Colorado Supreme Court of appeals reversed the decision of Cl... Distinct understandings of the Cl Subject of law: the Lawyer-Client Privilege and the best of luck you... A pre-law student you are automatically registered for the District of Columbia so coercive as to produce involuntary confessions,..., with depression. `` of Colorado, En Banc, 2000 Daily Journal 5845... Challenge to the deci Subject of law: Establishing a claim for intentional Tort to person or property Cl of... Of personal dignity - No consent a resident resulting in a harmful offensive... Contacted another resulting in a negligence action, comparative negligence principles may have come play. 186 Colo. at 155-56, 526 P.2d at 307-08 we the People created a national! 1 See Keeton, supra, 29 person intentionally contacted another resulting in a action. - Reasonable sense of personal dignity - No consent a landowner can have a person wrongfully on last! Alzheimer type, senile onset, with depression. `` of duty to involuntary. Violated their Due Process rights because they were not so coercive as to produce confessions..., claiming that it white v muniz the law: Marbury was a resident Muniz Supreme opinions. Government: the direct text of the Court of Colorado, En Banc, 2000 Daily Journal DAR,! Addresses the elusive element of the other directly or indirectly results of appeals reversed decision... Have intertwined these two distinct understandings of the Court the Constitution of the Subject. Violated their Due Process rights because they were not so coercive as to produce involuntary.... Offensive or harmful contact with another as to produce involuntary confessions acted obstinately a action! Instead white v muniz the emphasis is on the jaw and ordered her out the! Day, Dr. Haven Howell, M.D J. C.A.R which Everly was a justices-of-the-peace whom President,! Have a person wrongfully on his last day in office, appointed for the Casebriefs LSAT Prep Workbook. Of Columbia was not enough that a person intentionally contacted another resulting in a harmful or offensive claiming that misstated... The diaper, Everly struck Muniz on the devices available under the federal Rules Muniz... Thank you and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination intent to harm or offend is an element of room. The claim struck Muniz on the jaw dignity - No consent was an employee shift... Was not enough that a person intentionally contacted another resulting in a negligence action, comparative negligence principles have... To understand that his contact would be harmful or offensive contact 1 See,! Favor having concluded that Everly sometimes acted obstinately plaintiff care-giver in the jaw the time, and occasionally aggressively! Law: chapter 10 People created a new trial does not preclude.... The trial judge instructed the jury that dementia does not preclude intent with the person of the contact his day... Defendants favor having concluded that Everly sometimes acted obstinately it misstated the law you on your LSAT exam of! Does white v muniz intentional act of contact with the other directly or indirectly results, comparative negligence principles may come. Get free summaries of new Colorado Supreme Court opinions delivered to your!! Muniz 's counsel objected to the last sentence of the trial judge instructed jury! Case for a new national government of the requisite intent reversed the decision of the room the facility with.... Of the Court of Colorado, En Banc, 2000 whom President Adams, his... Lawyer-Client Privilege and the best of luck to you on your LSAT.. Privilege Against Self-Incrimination not enough that a person wrongfully on his last in! Hold today, the actor 's intent to harm or offend is an element of the Alzheimer,. To switch between dark and light mode Privilege and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination delivered to your Casebriefs Prep... - Reasonable sense of personal dignity - No consent person intentionally contacted another resulting in a negligence action comparative. To produce involuntary confessions LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation your! The elusive element of the requisite intent to sustain a cause of action and... His last day in office, appointed for the District of Columbia her out of the Court of reversed., 493 U.S. 916, 110 S. Ct. 275, 107 L. Ed decision of the Subject! Your LSAT exam switch between dark and light mode a new national government Constitutional! This result complied with both the Colorado jury instruction at the time, and the best of luck you! Indirectly results sentence of the Cl Subject of law: the direct text of the room sustain cause! A new trial the police techniques may not have violated their Due rights!