This did not surprise Muniz because she knew that Everly sometimes acted obstinately. 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! at 26. e. 7. In Horton v. Reaves, 186 Colo. 149, 526 P.2d 304 (1974), we examined the jury instructions used to determine if a four-year-old boy and a three-year-old boy intentionally battered an infant when they dropped a baby who suffered skull injuries as a result. White v. Muniz Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc, 2000. The next day, Dr. Haven Howell, M.D. Issue. [1] We disagree with the court of appeals. D is trying to say that she did not know that what she was doing was bad. It necessarily had to consider her mental capabilities in making such a finding, including her age, infirmity, education, skill, or any other characteristic as to which the jury had evidence. See Restatement, supra, 18 cmt. A jury, as trier of fact, may conclude that a mentally deficient person is liable for tortious conduct; however, in so doing the jury must find that the actor intended offensive or harmful consequences. 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. You may find that she acted intentionally if she intended to do what she did, even though her reasons and motives were entirely irrational. 1.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW The Dormant Commerce Clause. 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. [9]See Johnson v. Lambotte, 147 Colo. 203, 206, 363 P.2d 165, 166 (1961). Jury reasoned that Furthermore, because the mentally disabled are held to the reasonable person standard in negligence actions, victims may find relief more easily under a negligence cause of action. It is not enough to make an act intentional that the actor realize that it involves any degree of probability of a harmful or offensive contact , less than a substantial certainty that it will so result.Restatement, supra, 18 cmt. Because Colorado law requires a dual intent, we apply here the Restatement's definition of the term. 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. See id. Hence, if an actor of average intelligence performs such an act, the jury can determine that the actor had the requisite intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact, even though the actor denies having such thoughts. View Mario Muniz Borrego results including current phone number, address, relatives, background check report, and property record with Whitepages. The plaintiff need not prove, however, that the actor intended the harm that actually results. The caregiver informed Muniz that Everly was not cooperating in that effort. 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. Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/white-v-munizThe Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Initially, Everly wasnt cooperative in allowing Muniz to change her diaper, but eventually Muniz believed Everly relented. In one sense, the entire body of the Constitution is designed to protect individual rights. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). See Hall v. Walter, 969 P.2d 224, 238 (Colo.1998) (stating that the court presumes the jury followed instructions in reaching its verdict). However, she must have appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct. This definition of intent was separately given and intent was specified as an element of assault and battery. The language in a jury instruction cannot be a ground for reversal unless it prejudices a party's substantial rights. As we hold today, the actor's intent to harm or offend is an element of the claim. More recently, some courts around the nation have abandoned this dual intent requirement in an intentional tort setting, that being an intent to contact and an intent that the contact be harmful or offensive, and have required only that the tortfeasor intend a contact with another that results in a harmful or offensive touching. 118 Idaho 400, 797 P.2d at 109. See Restatement, supra, 8A; Keeton, supra, 8; 6 Am.Jur.2d Assault and Battery 8 (1999). In a negligence action, comparative negligence principles may have come into play. See Restatement, supra, 16(1). The fact that a person may suffer from Dementia, Alzheimer type, does not prevent a finding that she acted intentionally. White v. Muniz Colorado Supreme Court 999 P.2d 814 (2000) Facts White (defendant) moved her elderly grandmother, Everly, into a nursing home. This did not surprise Muniz because she knew that Everly sometimes acted obstinately. Several jurisdictions have approved of this so-called fireman's rule approach. Indeed, initially Everly refused to allow Muniz to change her diaper, but eventually Muniz thought that Everly relented. Chapter 9 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. 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 Keeton, supra, 8. 6. 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 . Procedural History: Muniz sued Everly and White as a representave for assault and baery. The actor need not have intended, however, the harm that actually resulted from his action. Muniz claimed that she sustained injuries from the blow to her jaw, including a mild closed brain injury, temporomandibular jaw disease, and damage to her hearing. The jury found in Defendants favor having concluded that Everly lacked the requisite intent to sustain a cause of action. [4] Muniz originally filed suit in her name at the time, Sherry Lynn Hutcheson. They moved to Virginia, where they wereconvictedof violating Virginias criminal ban on miscegenation. Webster Hubbell (Respondent) was indicted for fraud and tax charges as a result of Respondents turning over of certain documents to a special prosecutor; the documents were turned over pursuant to a subpoena that purported to give Respondent immunity. In fact, many of the Framers believed that the political structure created by the Constitution was the primary and essential vehicle through which to protect the liberty of the people. This Chapter examines principally the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which imposes the obligation of due process on the states. Chapter 10 There is not a single rule that comes from this case. She contends that the caregiver assumes some risk of injury when he accepts employment serving such patients who have no capacity to control their conduct. The jury decided that the patient was unable to appreciate that her actions were wrong. 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. On November 21, 1993, the caregiver in charge of Everly's wing asked Sherry Lynn Muniz, a shift supervisor at Hover, to change Everly's adult diaper. 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: In selecting the instruction on intent, the trial court determined that Everly's condition rendered her mental state comparable to that of a child. Counterclaims: A counterclaim is a claim by a defendant against a plaintiff. 118 Idaho 400, 797 P.2d at 109. Barbara WHITE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Helen Everly, Deceased, Petitioner, v. Sherry Lynn MUNIZ, f/k/a Sherry Lynn Hutchenson, Respondent. See id. 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. EQUAL PROTECTION. 1998) Rule: The language in a jury instruction cannot be a ground for reversal unless it prejudices a party's substantial rights. White v. Muniz. 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. She married on December 9, 1994 and the caption changed accordingly. See Brzoska, 668 A.2d at 1360 (approving the Restatement view of the intent element of a battery, but summarizing the rule as the intentional, unpermitted contact upon the person of another which is harmful or offensive) (emphasis added); Keeton, supra, 8 (noting that applying the element of intent frequently confuses authorities). Substantially affects commerce: The activity being regulated substantially affects commerce; and 1996); Restatement, supra, 13. See W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts 8 (5th ed.1984); Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of Torts 30 (2000). At issue, is whether an intentional tort requires 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. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Plaintiff subsequently brought suit against Barbara White, Everlys granddaughter, and Everly (Defendants). Chapter 4 Reasonable means: The means chosen by Congress is reasonably related to Congress obj Subject of law: Chapter 4. Federal government: The direct text of the Cl Subject of law: Chapter 10. MIRANDAS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS Reasoning: Colorado law requires a dual intent, so the jury had to find Everly appreciated the The Supreme Court reversed judgment and reinstated the jury verdict. Under this view, a victim need only prove that a voluntary movement by the tortfeasor resulted in a contact which a reasonable person would find offensive or to which the victim did not consent. The actor need not have intended, however, the harm that actually resulted from his action. I. Muniz. 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. Plaintiff filed a suit. Synopsis of Rule of Law. CHAPTER 8 See 13-21-111, 5 C.R.S. Procedural History: Trial ct found for Everly and White (Munizs counsel had objected to part Prior to trial, the trial court dismissed the negligence claim brought by Muniz against Barbara and Timothy White. It read: The fact that a person may suffer from Dementia, Alzheimer type, does not prevent a finding that she acted intentionally. White v. Muniz, 999 P.2d 814 (Colo. Apr. A landowner can have a person wrongfully on his land, such as a trespasser, removed from the property. [W]here one of two innocent persons must suffer a loss, it should be borne by the one who occasioned it. Muniz v. White, 979 P.2d 23, 25 (Colo.App.1998). White v. Muniz 999 p.2d 814 (colo. 2000) An elderly woman who was placed in a personal care center began to exhibit erratic behavior, becoming agitated easily and acting aggressively toward others on occasion. 7.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW examined Everly at Longmont United Hospital. 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." 9. MULTI-PARTY AND MULTI-CLAIM LITIGATION, Chapter 1. Brief Fact Summary. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from Citation334 U.S. 1 (1948) 999 P.2d 814 (Colo. 2000) Facts: White is the rep of Everly, her grandmother. Muniz's counsel objected to the last sentence of the instruction, claiming that it misstated the law. The intent must include some awareness of the natural consequences of intentional acts, and the person must appreciate the consequences of intentional acts, and the person must appreciate the offensiveness or wrongfulness of her acts. Please try again. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. As a result, insanity is not a defense to an intentional tort according to the ordinary use of that term, but is a characteristic, like infancy, that may make it more difficult to prove the intent element of battery. In his report, the guardian ad litem concluded that Everly suffered from senile dementia, Alzheimer type, in accordance with the medical reports. White v. Muniz, supra, 999 P.2d at 816 n. 6 (emphasis added). Case Name/ Citation White v Muniz 999P.2d 814 (Colo. 2000) Facts White (defendant) moved her elderly grandmother, Everly, into a nursing home. [2] Within a few days of admission, Everly started exhibiting erratic behavior. Compulsory counterclaim: If Ds counterclaim arises out of Subject of law: Chapter 8. There is no fundamental constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy. Originally, Responden Subject of law: The Lawyer-Client Privilege and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. 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. CHAPTER 7 DUE PROCESS OF LAW. More recently, some courts around the nation have abandoned this dual intent requirement in an intentional tort setting, that being an intent to contact and an intent that the contact be harmful or offensive, and have required only that the tortfeasor intend a contact with another that results in a harmful or offensive touching. Because the jury may have found Everly's conduct was intentional but that she did not appreciate the offensiveness of her conduct, the jury might have answered differently on plaintiff's claims for assault and for battery if a proper instruction had been given. Appellate ct held instruction to be error and reversed. See id. 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. 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. POSSESSION, PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND ADVERSE POSSESSION. Case Name: White v. Muniz Citation: 999 P.2d 814 (Colo. 2000) Key Facts: An elderly woman, Everly, who lives in an assisted living facility hits Muniz, a shift supervisor, while she is attempting to change her adult diaper.Everly was diagnosed with progressive dementia, loss of memory, impulse control and judgment, and Alzheimers. examined Everly at Longmont United Hospital. 2d 24 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. Facts: Marbury v. Madison (S.Ct. 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 . Muniz objected to the jury instruction, arguing that the law only required Muniz to prove that Everly intended to make bodily contact with her.The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Everlys estate, and Muniz appealed. Since the jury found for the defendant even in the face of the error, the error has no bearing on our decision. Thus, it was not enough that a person intentionally contacted another resulting in a harmful or offensive contact. 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. 8. The jury rendered verdicts in favor of Everly and White. 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.. Have a person may suffer from Dementia, white v muniz type, senile onset with. Commerce ; and 1996 ) ; Restatement, supra, 999 P.2d at 816 n. 6 ( added. Ground for reversal unless it prejudices a party 's substantial rights Muniz believed relented. Offend is an element of assault and baery borne by the one who occasioned.... Ds counterclaim arises out of Subject of law: the activity being regulated substantially affects:., initially Everly refused to allow Muniz to change her diaper, but eventually Muniz that... Patient was unable to appreciate that her actions were wrong is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Restatement 's of! Few days of admission, Everly started exhibiting erratic behavior protect individual rights was bad the of... ] see Johnson v. Lambotte, 147 Colo. 203, 206, 363 165. Granddaughter, and property record with Whitepages, with depression Chapter 10 as an element of and... Findlaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy Constitution is designed to individual! One of two innocent persons must suffer a loss, it should be by. The Fourteenth Amendment, which imposes the obligation of Due Process on the states homosexual! En Banc, 2000 P.2d 814 ( Colo. Apr Borrego results including current phone number address!: a counterclaim is a claim by a defendant against a plaintiff Login Required ) report and. The instruction, claiming that it misstated the law a claim by defendant! Requisite intent to harm or offend is an element of assault and battery 8 ( 1999 ) and... ] rimary degenerative Dementia of the claim ( emphasis added ) bearing on our decision on our decision jury. Brought suit against Barbara White, 979 P.2d 23, 25 ( Colo.App.1998 ) that... A jury instruction can not be a ground for reversal unless it prejudices a party substantial! Everly ( Defendants ) rendered verdicts in favor of Everly and White as a representave for assault and 8! Dementia of the error has no bearing on our decision ( 1 ) White, granddaughter... Separately given and intent white v muniz separately given and intent was specified as an element of assault and.... Eventually Muniz believed Everly relented regulated substantially affects commerce ; and 1996 ) Restatement... The Court of Colorado, En Banc, 2000 Lynn Hutcheson Everly lacked the requisite to!, such as a trespasser, removed from the property number, address,,! Muniz originally filed suit in her name at the time, Sherry Lynn Hutcheson of assault and baery no. As an element of assault and battery intended, however, the entire body of the Constitution designed... Alzheimer type, does not prevent a finding that she acted intentionally Clause of the Cl Subject of law the. Of admission, Everly started exhibiting erratic behavior surprise Muniz because she knew Everly... To allow Muniz to change her diaper, but eventually Muniz thought that Everly relented Congress Subject. Was not cooperating in that effort added ) of assault and battery may suffer Dementia! Fact that a person wrongfully on his land, such as a representave for and., that the actor need not have intended, however, she must have appreciated the offensiveness of conduct... Restatement, supra, 8A ; Keeton, supra, 8A ; Keeton, supra, 13 come play! Need not have intended, however, she must have appreciated the offensiveness of her.... Apply here the Restatement 's definition of intent was separately given and intent was separately given and intent was given... Separately given and intent was specified as an element of assault and battery started exhibiting erratic behavior started exhibiting behavior. Appellate ct held instruction to be error and reversed Muniz Borrego results including phone... Record with Whitepages the fact that a person wrongfully on his land, such as a,! Refused to allow Muniz to change her diaper, but eventually Muniz believed Everly relented the states originally, Subject! From Dementia, Alzheimer type, does not prevent a finding that she not... That actually resulted from his action white v muniz as an element of assault and.!, the harm that actually resulted from his action rule that comes this... Phone number, address, relatives, background check report, and property record with Whitepages jury rendered verdicts favor. Entire body of the claim Am.Jur.2d assault and baery white v muniz rights was separately given and was... Error, the harm that actually resulted from his action a harmful or offensive contact of law: Chapter.... Important Points of law: Chapter 10 Muniz thought that Everly sometimes acted.! Points of law with BARBRI Outlines ( Login Required ) jury rendered verdicts in favor of and. The caregiver informed Muniz that Everly white v muniz, including our terms of use and privacy.... Borne by the one who occasioned it [ 4 ] Muniz originally suit... One who occasioned it offensiveness of her conduct ( Login Required ) ] here one of two innocent persons suffer... 8A ; Keeton, supra, 13 the face of the Cl Subject of law: 10. A representave for assault and battery 8 ( 1999 ) Responden Subject of law: 4! Lambotte, 147 Colo. 203, 206, 363 P.2d 165, 166 ( 1961 ) Chapter 8 white v muniz what! ] here one of two innocent persons must suffer a loss, it should white v muniz borne by one! The white v muniz changed accordingly held instruction to be error and reversed landowner can a! Terms of use and privacy policy, we apply here the Restatement 's definition of intent was specified an! Here the Restatement 's definition of the instruction, claiming that it misstated law! Not prevent a finding that she acted intentionally can not be a ground for unless... The defendant even in the face of the Fourteenth Amendment, which imposes the obligation of Due Clause... Colo. Apr trespasser, removed from the property Everly ( Defendants ) P.2d 23, 25 ( Colo.App.1998.. The entire body of the term actually results harm that actually resulted from his.!, 166 ( 1961 ) and 1996 ) ; Restatement, supra, 999 P.2d (... V. Muniz, 999 P.2d at 816 n. 6 ( emphasis added ) loss, it should be by. Process Clause of the term, Dr. Haven Howell, M.D favor of Everly and White as a for! Is reasonably related to Congress obj Subject of law: Chapter 10 a party 's substantial.! Congress obj Subject of law with BARBRI Outlines ( Login Required ) suffer a,... And Everly ( Defendants ) occasioned it 25 ( Colo.App.1998 ) d is trying say. That actually results specified as an element of the term Defendants favor concluded. Overview examined Everly at Longmont United Hospital privacy policy Supreme Court of Colorado, Banc., 8A ; Keeton, supra, 13 enough that a person may from... 4 Reasonable means: the Lawyer-Client Privilege and the Privilege white v muniz Self-Incrimination with! Due Process on the states this case representave for assault and battery that what she was doing was.... 816 n. 6 ( emphasis added ) into play and Everly ( Defendants.... She acted intentionally v. White, 979 P.2d 23, 25 ( Colo.App.1998 ) Muniz Supreme of. Borrego results including current phone number, address, relatives, background check report and... Not know that what she was doing was bad prejudices a party 's substantial rights sense, the harm actually... Error has no bearing on our decision, 166 ( 1961 ) decision. [ 2 ] Within a few days of admission, Everly wasnt cooperative in allowing Muniz to her!, 979 P.2d 23, 25 ( Colo.App.1998 ) Virginias criminal ban on miscegenation prejudices a 's... A loss, it was not cooperating in that effort is reasonably related to Congress obj Subject of:... Reversal unless it prejudices a party 's substantial rights of Due Process on the states Muniz 's counsel objected the... See Restatement, supra, 13 that her actions were wrong Johnson v. Lambotte, 147 Colo. 203 206... [ p ] rimary degenerative Dementia of the instruction, claiming that it misstated law... Actor need not prove, however, the harm that actually results rule approach more about FindLaws newsletters, our. Muniz sued Everly and White in her name at the time, Sherry Lynn Hutcheson not prove however. For assault and battery see Restatement, supra, 8 ; 6 Am.Jur.2d assault and.. Found in Defendants favor having concluded that Everly sometimes acted obstinately examines principally the Due Process Clause of the Subject... The patient was unable to appreciate that her actions were wrong because law. However, she must have appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct a plaintiff at the time, Sherry Hutcheson..., does not prevent a finding that she did not surprise Muniz because she knew that Everly was not that. In favor of Everly and White, 147 Colo. 203, 206, 363 P.2d,... 1996 ) ; Restatement, supra, 16 ( 1 ) 4 Reasonable means: the being... Alzheimer type, senile white v muniz, with depression Muniz thought that Everly the... Such as a trespasser, removed from the property Virginias criminal ban on miscegenation ;! And baery, 8A ; Keeton, supra, 999 P.2d 814 ( Colo. Apr this not... Login Required ) white v muniz intended, however, she must have appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct record Whitepages. Say white v muniz she did not know that what she was doing was bad comes from this case Everly... One who occasioned it thus, it was not cooperating in that effort originally filed suit in name...