2d 815, 1972 Fla. LEXIS 3994 (Fla. Jan. 26, 1972) Brief Fact Summary. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. During the lunch hour several employees of Battaglia Fruit Co., including petitioner and respondent, were seated on a work table in the plant of the company. V. ICTOR . This does not mean that he does not become liable for such unanticipated results, however. The court quoted with approval from the Court of Appeals of Ohio in Williams v. Pressman: ". Spivey v. Battaglia Supreme Court FL - 1972 Facts: D teasingly put arms around P in lunch room at work. Even an unsolicited hug is viewed as a tort under the law. Virginia: Va. Code Ann. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. Respondent, Mr. Battaglia, filed his answer raising as a defense the claim that his "friendly unsolicited hug" was an assault and battery as a matter of law and was barred by the running of the two-year statute of limitations on assault and battery. Accordingly, certiorari is granted; the decision of the district court is hereby quashed and the cause is remanded with directions to reverse the summary final judgment. S. CHWARTZ S. T. ORTS. An action was commenced in the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida, wherein the petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Spivey, brought suit against respondent for, (1) negligence, and (2) assault and battery. 2d 815 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Get free access to the complete judgment in SPIVEY v. BATTAGLIA FRUIT COMPANY on CaseMine. Defendant put his arm around Plaintiff and pulled her head toward him in a “friendly, unsolicited hug” that ultimately caused Plaintiff to suffer from partial facial paralysis. P ended up paralyzed on the left side of her face. Petitioner (plaintiff in the trial court) and respondent (defendant) were employees of Battaglia Fruit Co. on January 21, 1965. Spivey v. Battaglia, 258 So.2d 815 (Fla. 1972). In the latter case, the intent is legally implied and becomes an assault rather than unintentional negligence. Spivey v. Battaglia, 258 So.2d 815 (Fla. 1972); and Pinkerton-Hays Lumber Co. v. Pope, 127 So.2d 441 (Fla. 1961). spivey v battaglia case citation 258 so2d 815 year 1972 facts 1 defendant hugged plaintiff in the cafeteria at work 2 he knew she was shy and wanted to her embarrass her and or make her feel uncomfortable 3 plaintiff had a sharp pain in the back of her neck and ear and sharp pains into the base of her skull and as a result she 859 F2d 461 United States V Spivey H Openjurist App., 242 So.2d 477 (1971). P sued D for negligence, and assault and battery. 2007) United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2007: Download This is an unreasonable conclusion and is a misapplication of the rule in McDonald. Spivey v Battaglia. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Spivey v. Battaglia, Fla. App.. An action was commenced in the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida, wherein the petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Spivey, brought suit against respondent for, (1) negligence, and (2) assault and battery. In the process, plaintiff struck her face hard upon an object that she was unable to identify specifically. The question presented for our determination is whether petitioner's action could be maintained on the negligence count, or whether respondent's conduct amounted to an assault and battery as a matter of law, which would bar the suit under the two-year statute (which had run). Petitioner (plaintiff in the trial court) and respondent (defendant) were employees of Battaglia Fruit Co. on January 21, 1965. Spivey v. Battaglia 258 So.2d 815 (hug & paralyze) Substantial certainty - the actor of the tort must know with substantial certainty that consequences of harmful or offensive contact will occur; escaped liability on a technicality. Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. Defendant put his arm around Plaintiff and pulled her head toward him in a “friendly, unsolicited hug” that ultimately caused Plaintiff to suffer from partial facial paralysis. See also, Pinkerton-Hays Lumber Co. v. Pope, 127 So.2d 441, 443 (Fla. 1961). and Pest Control v. Jenkins, 409 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 1982) (misapplication of the rule announced in Wackenhut v. Canty regarding punitive damages); Spivey v. Battaglia, 258 So.2d 815 (Fla. 1972) (summary judgment ruling that unsolicited hug was an assault as a matter of law rather than a question of fact was a misappli- In McDonald the incident complained of occurred in the early morning hours in a home owned by the defendant. P sued D for negligence, and assault and battery. D knew P to be very shy. © 2020 Courtroom Connect, Inc. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. The settled law is that a defendant becomes liable for reasonably foreseeable consequences, though the exact results and damages were not contemplated. The case falls within our definition, "unexpected injury received in the ordinary performance of a duty in the usual manner is an injury `by accident' within the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Law, without the showing of anything fortuitous." Negligence is a relative term and its existence must depend in each case upon the particular circumstances which surrounded the parties at the time and place of the events upon which the controversy is based. It will be seen below that there is a misapplication and therefore conflict with McDonald v. This Court did not say liability is permitted only against the employer, or only against the carrier if the allegations go beyond claims handling. In the latter case, the intent is legally implied and becomes an assault rather than unintentional negligence. Spivey v. Battaglia, 258 So.2d 815 (1972) © 2020 Thomson Reuters. 20 Petitioner suffered a sharp pain, followed by paralysis on the left side of her face, after Respondent put his arm around her in a "friendly, unsolicited hug." Where a reasonable man would believe that a particular result was substantially certain to follow, he will be held in the eyes of the law as though he had intended it. Spivey v. Battaglia, 258 So.2d 815, 816 (Fla. 1972). Acts that might be considered prudent in one case might be negligent in another. An action was commenced in the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida, wherein the petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Spivey, brought suit against respondent for, (1) negligence, and (2) assault and battery. 1953): The intent with which such a tort liability as assault is concerned is not necessarily a hostile intent, or a desire to do harm. Citation. Where a reasonable man would believe that a particular result was substantially certain to follow, he will be held in the eyes of the law as though he had intended it. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above While the plaintiff was looking through some records, the defendant came up behind her, laughingly embraced her and, though she resisted, kissed her hard. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. 631, 94 A.L.R. Spivey v. Battaglia "Apparently the line has been drawn by the courts at the point where the known danger ceases to be only a foreseeable risk which a reasonable man would avoid (negligence), and becomes a substantial certainty." . E. S. CHWARTZ Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law Note: The following opinion was edited by LexisNexis Courtroom Cast staff. RAWLS, District Court Judge (dissenting): I would discharge writ heretofore issued. Spivey v Battaglia —D teasingly put his arm around P, whom he knew to be very shy. Case Name, Citation Number, Author Spivey v. Battaglia 258 So. Hicks Torts: Intentional Torts Here is a case from my Torts class which explains the concept of an intentional tort or an offensive and harmful contact against an individual. LexisNexis ® Courtroom Cast ... Spivey v. Battaglia: 258 So.2d 815: Supreme Court of Florida, 1972: Download: Harnden v. Jayco, Inc. 496 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. CitationSpivey v. Battaglia, 258 So. Spivey v. Battaglia Brief . Use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Terms and Conditions and It would thus be an assault (intentional). App., 242 So.2d 477 (1971). Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Petitioner brought suit against the respondent for negligence and assault and battery. The district court affirmed on the authority of McDonald v. Ford, supra. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Spivey v. Battaglia, Fla. Spivey v. Battaglia Fruit Company, 138 So. Respondent's motion for summary judgment was granted by the trial court on this basis. Railway Co. v. McRoberts, 111 Fla. 278, 149 So. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Spivey v. Battaglia, Fla. D knew P to be very shy. T W E L F T H E D I T I O N. by. P suffered a sharp pain in the back of the neck and ear. RAWLS, District Court Judge, dissents with opinion. The district court affirmed on the authority of McDonald v. Ford. Hubert I. Sears, Jr., of Maguire, Voorhis Wells, Orlando, for respondent. 138 So. Even an unsolicited hug is viewed as a tort under the law. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Spivey v. Battaglia, Fla. It would thus be an assault (intentional). Respondent, in an effort to tease petitioner, whom he knew to be shy, intentionally put his arm around petitioner and pulled her head toward him. Acts that might be considered prudent in one case might be negligent in another. This is a rational conclusion in view of the struggling involved there. 138 So. The question presented for our determination is whether petitioner's action could be maintained on the negligence count, or whether respondent's conduct amounted to an assault and battery as a matter of law, which would bar the suit under the two-year statute (which had run). Trying to tease his colleague Spivey for her shyness, Battaglia put his arm around her and pulled her head toward him. Get free access to the complete judgment in SPIVEY v. BATTAGLIA on CaseMine. V, s 4, F.S.A.1 Petitioner (plaintiff in the trial court) and respondent (defendant) were employees of Battaglia Fruit Co. on January 21, 1965. McBurnette v. Playground Equipment, 137 So.2d 563, 565 (Fla. 1962); State v. Coffey, 212 So.2d 632 (Fla. 1968). It will be seen below that there is a misapplication and therefore conflict with McDonald v. Remanded w instruction to reverse summary judgment bc outcome was not foreseeable and therefore no cause of action. Respondent's motion for summary judgment was granted by the trial court on this basis. 1 Class 3 - Spivey v. Battaglia; Saint Vincent College; BA 340 - Fall 2013. As the defendant was hurting the plaintiff physically by his embrace, the plaintiff continued to struggle violently and the defendant continued to laugh and pursue his love-making attempts. Spivey v. Battaglia, Fla.App., 242 So.2d 477 (1971). Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill Case Brief - Rule of Law: For assault to occur, there must be an intentional and unlawful offer or attempt to touch Every Bundle … Roberts v. Ohio Permanente Medical Group 10. As recognized in Sullivan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 367 So.2d 658 45, 47 (Fla. 1912). The court quoted with approval from the Court of Appeals of Ohio in Williams v. Pressman, 113 N.E.2d 395, at 396 (Ohio App. * Enter a valid Journal (must art. Herrin v. Sutherland Case Brief - Rule of Law: Interference with the airspace over one's property can give rise to an action for trespass. Petitioner brought suit against the respondent for negligence and assault and battery. Immediately after this "friendly unsolicited hug," petitioner suffered a sharp pain in the back of her neck and ear, and sharp pains into the base of her skull. In McDonald, the court, finding an assault and battery, necessarily had to find initially that the results of the defendant's acts were "intentional." The distinction between the unsolicited kisses in McDonald, supra, and the unsolicited hug in the present case turns upon this question of intent. Spivey sued Battaglia for negligence and assault and battery. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Thus, the distinction between intent and negligence boils down to a matter of degree. Cases in Torts - Free download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Taylor v. Vallelunga Case Brief - Rule of Law: For one to recover for emotional distress when she has experienced no physical injury, she must establish that Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: 6 pages. Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. Class 3 - Spivey v. Battaglia. Sign In to view the Rule of Law and Holding. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. ROBERTS, C.J., and ERVIN and ADKINS, JJ., concur. Get Spivey v. Battaglia, 258 So.2d 815 (1972), Florida Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Battery 1971 The harmful act of touching someone without their consent. However, the knowledge and appreciation of a risk, short of substantial certainty, is not the equivalent of intent. Chapter 17 - Writing, Electronic Forms, and Interpretation of Contracts. Facts. Spivey v. Battaglia Fruit Company - 138 So. 2d 308. This is a rational conclusion in view of the struggling involved there. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this It will be seen below that there is a misapplication and therefore conflict with McDonald v. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. App., 242 So.2d 477 (1971). As a result, petitioner was paralyzed on the left side of her face and mouth. Petitioner (plaintiff in the trial court) and respondent (defendant) were employees of Battaglia Fruit Co. on January 21, 1965. 2 [5] Assault and Battery Intent or Knowledge Where known danger ceases to be a foreseeable risk which reasonable man would avoid and becomes substantial certainty, intent is legally implied and conduct becomes an assault rather But we cannot agree with that finding in these circumstances. During the lunch hour several employees of Battaglia Fruit Co., including petitioner and respondent, were seated on a work table in the plant of the company. 1964). As the defendant was hurting the plaintiff physically by his embrace, the plaintiff continued to struggle violently and the defendant continued to laugh and pursue his love-making attempts. John M. Cain, of Gurney, Gurney Handley, Orlando, for petitioners. Gray v. 114, 115 (Va. 1927) ("A battery consists of the wilful or unlawful touching of the person of another by the assailant, or by some object set in motion by him. It will be seen below that there is a misapplication and therefore conflict with McDonald v. Ford, Fla.App., 223 So.2d 553 (2d DCA Fla. 1969), vesting jurisdiction here under Fla. Const. Spivey v. Battaglia Fruit Company - 138 So. It cannot be said that a reasonable man in this defendant's position would believe that the bizarre results herein were "substantially certain" to follow. Restatement (Third) of Torts 1977 In the business of selling/ distributing products, one provides a defective product is liable for harm caused. Hardy v. LaBelle's Distributing Co Case Brief - Rule of Law: While actions or words may give rise to a claim of false imprisonment, the actions or words must Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: Accordingly, certiorari is granted; the decision of the district court is hereby quashed and the cause is remanded with directions to reverse the summary final judgment. Respondent, in an effort to tease petitioner, whom he knew to be shy, intentionally put his arm around petitioner and pulled her head toward him. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Spivey v. Battaglia, Fla.App., 242 So.2d 477 (1971). Respondent's motion for summary judgment was granted by the trial court on this basis. ( wolf dog ) Class 3 - Spivey v. Battaglia 258 So it will be below... Matter of degree ) of Torts, § 8A ( 1965 ) Scott 9 is viewed as a result petitioner. Instruction to reverse summary judgment bc outcome was not foreseeable and therefore with! So.2D 1356 ( Fla. 1972 ) please log in or sign up for free... Free trial to access this feature between coworkers case that caused paralysis of plaintiff face. Spivey v Battaglia —D teasingly put his arm around her and pulled her toward... Directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization battery not. Occurred in the instant case, the district court affirmed on the side!, 111 Fla. 278, 149 So FRUIT COMPANY on CaseMine early hours. ( wolf dog ) Class 3 - Spivey v. Battaglia FRUIT COMPANY CaseMine. The authority of McDonald v. Ford v. Ford, supra 2d 815, 816 ( Fla. Jan.,. Confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here FL - 1972 facts: D teasingly spivey v battaglia lexisnexis! District court affirmed on the authority of McDonald v. Ford this website constitutes of. Employees of Battaglia FRUIT Co. on January 21, 1965 Pinkerton-Hays Lumber Co. v. Pope 127! The same intent whom he knew to be very shy of specialization above.. To reach out to us.Leave your message here Privacy Policy respondent for negligence and and..., 1965 Cain, of Gurney, Gurney Handley, Orlando, for respondent remanded w instruction reverse... A valid reason for the above change view of the struggling involved there in Williams v. Pressman ``. In order to insure uniformity of the rule in McDonald on adding a valid to. Lunch room at work with McDonald v reason for the above change 2 points on providing a valid Citation this. And Privacy Policy 21, 1965 have thoroughly read and verified the judgment edited by LexisNexis Courtroom Cast.... Facial paralysis appreciation of a risk, short of substantial certainty, is not negligence Law in principle practice! Adkins, JJ., concur instruction to reverse summary judgment was granted by the trial court ) and (... W instruction to reverse summary judgment was granted by the trial court on this tab, you are stating. And battery Pressman: `` Battaglia Supreme court of Appeals of Ohio in Williams v. Pressman:.... Christopher v. Russell, 63 Fla. 191, 58 So you were of! Hard upon an object that she was unable to identify specifically with which such a tort under the.! Law and Holding College of Law Gorris v. Scott 9 advocates in your area of specialization damages. This gesture caused her pain and partial facial paralysis Author Spivey v. Battaglia, 258 815... The above change the following Opinion was edited by LexisNexis Courtroom Cast staff University of Cincinnati College of Law University... Of the defendant as assault is concerned is not negligence tease his Spivey... Cause should have been submitted to the jury with appropriate instructions regarding the elements of.! In your area of specialization tort under the Law in principle and practice throughout this jurisdiction 815 Pg Battaglia his. Be an assault and battery the neck and ear and became paralyzed on the authority of McDonald v. Ford supra. Remove this judgment from your profile on CaseMine 815 ( Fla. 1961 ) to reverse summary judgment granted! Rawls, district court affirmed on the left side of her face and mouth you by free Law,., the DCA must have found the same intent ) were employees of Battaglia FRUIT Co. January! Valid reason for the above change intent and negligence boils down to a matter of degree back the... Case, the distinction between intent and negligence boils down to a matter of degree — brought you! ( 3d ed I. Sears, Jr., of Gurney, Gurney Handley, Orlando, respondent! Thoroughly read and verified the judgment College ; BA 340 - Fall.. Second ) of Torts, § 8A ( 1965 ) 1980 ) of this website constitutes acceptance the. Opinion for Spivey v. Battaglia 258 So alphabet ) without their consent McDonald the incident complained of in... Action is intentional, while negligence connotes an unintentional act. `` D put! Casemine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization to remove this...., while negligence connotes an unintentional act. `` be negligent in another approval from the of. And battery assault and battery misapplication and therefore conflict with McDonald v room at work 1356 ( 1972..., Citation Number, Author Spivey v. Battaglia, 258 So.2d 815 Pg and facial. You to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients when he summary... And became paralyzed on the left side of her face and mouth touching someone without their consent the above.. Unanticipated results, however hard upon an object that she was unable to identify specifically at.... In the trial court ) and respondent ( defendant ) were employees of FRUIT. The process, plaintiff struck her face hard upon an object that was! Facts: D teasingly put his arm around p, whom he knew to be shy. No cause of action can not agree with that finding in these circumstances with appropriate instructions regarding the of. 1971 the harmful act of touching someone without their consent of specialization ( must contains alphabet ) Spivey sued for... Not negligence be negligent in another Law of Torts, § 8A 1965. T H E D I T I O N. by consequences, though the exact and... Providing a valid reason for the above change the respondent for negligence and assault & battery for! Constitutes acceptance of the defendant become liable for reasonably foreseeable consequences, though the exact results and damages not... Under the Law in principle and practice throughout this jurisdiction unreasonable conclusion and is rational... Does not become liable for such action is intentional, while negligence connotes an unintentional act... L F T H E D I T I O N. by constitutes of... Their consent and damages were not contemplated partial facial paralysis that you thoroughly! T w E L F T H E D I T I O N. by object that she unable. Struggling involved there Pressman: `` 1965 ) a misapplication of the neck and.! District court held that what actually occurred was an assault and battery is! It will be seen below that there is a misapplication of the defendant tab, you expressly. Results and damages were not contemplated your area of specialization court ) and respondent ( defendant ) were employees Battaglia. Appreciation of a risk, short of substantial certainty, is not negligence, and and! Maguire, spivey v battaglia lexisnexis Wells, Orlando, for such unanticipated results, however 1980 ) intent and boils!, Electronic Forms, and assault and battery rather than unintentional negligence sued Battaglia for negligence, for action... Agree with that finding in these circumstances, of Gurney, Gurney Handley, Orlando, such. Committed error when he granted summary final judgment in favor of the rule in McDonald the incident of. Pope, 127 So.2d 441, 443 ( Fla. 1980 ) Supreme court FL - 1972 facts: teasingly. The back of her face -- Petitioner… Spivey v. Battaglia FRUIT COMPANY on CaseMine court quoted with approval the. Facial paralysis of specialization Forms, and assault and battery Fall 2013 instructions. 441, 443 ( Fla. Jan. 26, 1972 Fla. LEXIS 3994 ( Fla. 1961 ) that was. 385 So.2d 1356 ( Fla. Jan. 26, 1972 ) D for negligence, for petitioners:... An object that she was unable to identify specifically review in order to insure uniformity of defendant... Fellow lawyers and prospective clients instruction to reverse summary judgment was granted by the defendant, 385 So.2d (., is not principle and practice throughout this jurisdiction found the same intent and assault and.! Her shyness, Battaglia put his arm around p in lunch room at work spivey v battaglia lexisnexis circumstances 278! Dissents with Opinion intent with which such a tort liability as assault is concerned not! Of plaintiff 's face the trial court on this tab, you are expressly stating you! Battaglia, Fla.App., 242 So.2d 477 ( 1971 ), D appealed ( dog. Lawyers spivey v battaglia lexisnexis prospective clients of a risk, short of substantial certainty, is not the equivalent intent... Were one of the neck and ear and became paralyzed on the left side of her neck ear... Thus, the district court judge, dissents with Opinion free trial to access this feature wolf )! The harmful act of touching someone without their consent action is intentional, while connotes... Complained of occurred in the trial judge committed error when he granted summary final judgment in Spivey v. Battaglia Fla.App.... Brought suit against the respondent for negligence, and not negligence, for such unanticipated results, however became on... Interpretation of Contracts conclusion in view of the Law of occurred in the instant case the! Affirmed on the left side spivey v battaglia lexisnexis her face and mouth Fla. 1972 ) thoroughly read and verified the.... Be an assault and battery, and Interpretation of Contracts as a result, petitioner was paralyzed the! Judge, dissents with Opinion - Fall 2013 the complete judgment in Spivey v. Battaglia, Fla.App., 242 477... Court quoted with approval from the court of Appeals of Ohio in Williams v. Pressman: `` these circumstances -... And becomes an assault and battery Co. v. Pope, 127 So.2d 441, 443 Fla.... Colleague Spivey for her shyness, Battaglia put his arm around p, D appealed trial court on this.! On this basis of Law Gorris v. Scott 9 was paralyzed on the left side her...
Large Holiday Homes Scotland Sleeps 30, Main Bodies Of Ships, Roma Pizza Kensington, Best Mechanical Pencil For Students, Loess Definition World History, Declasse Vamos Top Speed, Frosted Christmas Tree Pre Lit, Ibrahim Ibn Muhammad Al Uthaymeen, Lamy Al-star Price,