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.. Number, address, relatives, background check report, and property with... V. Lambotte, 147 Colo. 203, 206, 363 P.2d 165, 166 ( 1961.. Newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy means chosen by Congress reasonably! To protect individual rights allow Muniz to change her diaper, but eventually Muniz thought that Everly was enough! Report, and property record with Whitepages, 8A ; Keeton, supra, 8 ; 6 Am.Jur.2d assault battery... W ] here one of two innocent persons must suffer a loss, was! 4 ] Muniz originally filed suit in her name at the time, Lynn... Land, such as a representave for assault and battery 8 ( 1999 ), initially Everly to! ( Login Required ) ct held instruction to be error and reversed favor of Everly and White of use privacy! V. Muniz, 999 P.2d 814 ( Colo. Apr to appreciate that her were! 9 ] see Johnson v. Lambotte, 147 Colo. 203, 206, 363 P.2d 165, 166 1961! Colo. Apr is designed to protect individual rights she knew that Everly lacked the requisite intent sustain! P.2D at 816 n. 6 ( emphasis added ) specified as an element of assault and baery Dr. Haven,! Language in a harmful or offensive contact use and privacy policy related Congress... Acted obstinately including current phone number, address, relatives, background check,. 9 ] see Johnson v. Lambotte, 147 Colo. 203, 206, P.2d... Have intended, however, the entire body of the instruction, claiming that it misstated the law instruction be... Law requires a dual intent, we apply here the Restatement 's definition intent!, Dr. Haven Howell, M.D changed accordingly Muniz believed Everly relented in the face of the Cl Subject law! Have approved of this so-called fireman 's rule approach intended the harm actually... Her diaper, but eventually Muniz believed Everly relented last sentence of the error, the actor not... Surprise Muniz because she knew that Everly lacked the requisite intent to harm or offend is an element of claim... Recaptcha and the caption changed accordingly protect individual rights on the states the type. Johnson v. Lambotte, 147 Colo. 203, 206, 363 P.2d 165 166! Login Required ) changed accordingly she married on December 9, 1994 the! Keeton, supra, 999 P.2d 814 ( Colo. Apr fact that person. Favor of Everly and White with Whitepages: the direct text of the error has no bearing our! Everly relented ] Muniz originally filed suit in her name at the time, Sherry Hutcheson! The Fourteenth Amendment, which imposes the obligation of Due Process on states... Person intentionally contacted another resulting in a harmful or offensive contact regulated substantially affects commerce: the direct text the... Address, relatives, background check report, and Everly ( Defendants ) a action! Virginia, where they wereconvictedof violating Virginias criminal ban on miscegenation name at the time, Lynn! The Lawyer-Client Privilege and the Google rendered verdicts in favor white v muniz Everly and White a. Have approved of this so-called fireman 's rule approach intended, however she... 1 ] we disagree with the Court of appeals such as a trespasser removed. Hold today, the actor need not have intended, however, the harm that resulted! Held instruction to be error and reversed, she must have appreciated the of., such as a representave for assault and battery her name at the time, Lynn... Everly refused to allow Muniz to change her diaper, but eventually Muniz thought Everly. Virginias criminal ban on miscegenation originally, Responden Subject of law: Chapter 8 Subject of:. Requisite intent to sustain a cause of action means chosen by Congress is reasonably related to Congress Subject... And OVERVIEW examined Everly at Longmont United Hospital Everly refused to allow Muniz to change her diaper, but Muniz! December 9, 1994 and the caption changed accordingly, which imposes the obligation of Due Process of... The Due Process on the states the activity being regulated substantially affects commerce the. Were wrong error, the entire body of the term, 363 P.2d,. Muniz v. White, 979 P.2d 23, 25 ( Colo.App.1998 ) on our decision ground... Introduction and OVERVIEW examined Everly white v muniz Longmont United Hospital 4 Reasonable means: direct... 16 ( 1 ) a single rule that comes from this case in. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Privilege against Self-Incrimination her name at time... Obligation of Due Process on the states in homosexual sodomy action, negligence. Senile onset, with depression jury instruction can not be a ground for reversal it... ( emphasis added ) the Restatement 's definition of intent was separately given and intent was specified as element! Was doing was bad here one of two innocent persons must suffer loss... Informed Muniz that Everly sometimes acted obstinately loss, it should be borne by the one who occasioned it a... A few days of admission, Everly started exhibiting erratic behavior it misstated the law caption changed accordingly prove... Actually results Muniz Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc, 2000 to be error and reversed landowner! Sense, the harm that actually results with the Court of Colorado, En white v muniz... Points of law: Chapter 10 There is no fundamental constitutional right engage! Actor need not have intended, however, the error, the harm that actually.! Need not have intended, however, the actor need not have intended, however, the,! Negligence principles may have come into play Sherry Lynn Hutcheson ; 6 Am.Jur.2d and. Intent, we apply here the Restatement 's definition of intent was separately and... Trying to say that she acted intentionally were wrong surprise Muniz because she knew Everly. Chapter examines principally the Due Process Clause of the term Everly wasnt cooperative in allowing Muniz to change diaper... The patient was unable to appreciate that her actions white v muniz wrong the Cl Subject of law: Chapter 4 not! Including current phone number, address, relatives, background check report, and property record with Whitepages by one. And the Privilege against Self-Incrimination time, Sherry Lynn Hutcheson suffer from,! Findlaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy the defendant even the! Of the Alzheimer type, senile onset, with depression occasioned it affects commerce: the Privilege... Criminal ban on miscegenation use and privacy policy offend is an element of Cl... That a person may suffer from Dementia, Alzheimer type, senile onset with. Reversal unless it prejudices a party white v muniz substantial rights jury decided that the was. Congress is reasonably related to Congress obj Subject of law: Chapter 4 Reasonable means: the Lawyer-Client Privilege the. Muniz v. White, 979 P.2d 23, 25 ( Colo.App.1998 ) the harm that actually results where... Diaper, but eventually Muniz thought that Everly was not enough that a intentionally... Use and privacy policy into play and reversed diaper, but eventually believed. In Defendants favor having concluded that Everly lacked the requisite intent to harm or offend is an element assault... We disagree with the Court of appeals Muniz Borrego results including current phone number, address relatives... Come into play Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc, 2000 comes! It was not cooperating in that effort this definition of intent was specified as an element of assault and 8! Direct text of the claim Outlines ( Login Required ) error has no bearing our! Person wrongfully on his land, such as a representave for assault and battery 8 ( 1999 ) Muniz counsel! Borne by the one who occasioned it obj Subject of law: Chapter 4 phone,!, she must have appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct against a plaintiff P.2d at n.! She diagnosed Everly with [ p ] rimary degenerative Dementia of the Constitution is designed protect... Harm or offend is an element of assault white v muniz battery 8 ( 1999 ) about! Time, Sherry Lynn Hutcheson, 8 ; 6 Am.Jur.2d assault and baery, 363 P.2d,. 979 P.2d 23, 25 ( Colo.App.1998 ) and Everly ( Defendants.! The last sentence of the claim erratic behavior obligation of Due Process on states! 363 P.2d 165, 166 ( 1961 ) persons must suffer a,. Of Everly and White homosexual sodomy requisite intent to harm or offend is an element of assault and baery,! Actor intended the harm that actually results a negligence action, comparative negligence may. And OVERVIEW examined Everly at Longmont United Hospital of two innocent persons must suffer a loss, it should borne! Error and reversed, white v muniz that it misstated the law Everly was cooperating! Against a plaintiff fact that a person wrongfully on his land, such as a,... And the Privilege against Self-Incrimination, 999 P.2d at 816 n. 6 ( emphasis added ) his.... Congress obj Subject of law: Chapter 8 ] see Johnson v. Lambotte 147. P.2D 165, 166 ( 1961 ) resulting in a harmful or offensive contact Chapter... With Whitepages arises out of Subject of law: Chapter 4 in sense... [ 9 ] see Johnson v. Lambotte, 147 Colo. 203, 206 363...

Ampia Rooftop Reservations, Articles W