Bohrmann v. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.

Citation. 926 F. Supp. 211 (D. Me. 1996)

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation926 F. Supp. 211 (D. Me. 1996)

Brief Fact Summary.

Bohrman files suit against Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (Maine) for battery after Bohrmann tested positive for radiation exposure following a tour of Maine’s nuclear power plant.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Harmful or offensive contact is necessary to recover under the intentional tort of battery.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

The particularity requirement of Rule 9(b) has three purposes: (1) to place the defendants on notice and enable them to prepare meaningful responses; (2) to preclude the use of a groundless fraud claim as a pretext to discovering a wrong or as a strike suit'; and (3) to safeguard defendants from frivolous charges which might damage their reputations.

View Full Point of Law

Bohrmann went on a tour of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company’s (Maine) nuclear power plant after a radioactive gas leak occurred at the plant. Maine flushed hot spot sin the demineralizer during Bohrmann’s tour in order to repair the leak, causing the release of radioactive gas. Bohrmann tested positive for radiation exposure after the tour and brought suit for battery.

Issue.

Whether harmful or offensive contact is necessary to recover under the intentional tort of battery?

Held.

Yes. Judgment is granted to Bohrmann. Bohrmann established the requisite elements of battery.

Discussion.

Where intent to harm is not a required element of a battery claim, intent to contact is sufficient. Maine knew that the plaintiffs would be exposed to radiation and therefore met the intentional harmful or contact requirement of battery.