Brief Fact Summary. During Plaintiff Mullins’ surgery, a medical student performed an intubation that lacerated Mullins esophagus, requiring additional surgery and recovery time. Mullins had not consented to student involvement in her surgery. She sued for battery and lost.
Â
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Battery requires a harmful or offensive touching, without consent, with the intent to cause the resulting harm or offense.
Â
This duty arises from the relationship between the doctor and patient, and is imposed as a matter of law as are most legal duties.
View Full Point of LawÂ
Issue. Whether the tort of battery requires the intent to cause harm in addition to the intent to touch or make contact.
Â
Held. Yes. Although VanHoey “touched Mullins in a harmful and offensive manner without permissionâ€, Mullins could not show that VanHoey “acted intending to cause†harm. VanHoey had no reason to suspect that Mullins had not consented to the touching. As a student, she properly relied on her previous experience and the doctor’s authority in believing that she had permission to perform the intubation. In addition, she was under no obligation to obtain consent herself or to inquire into the consent under which the anesthesiologist was acting. Accordingly, the court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to VanHoey’s intent to cause a harmful contact, and that VanHoey was entitled to summary judgment on Mullins’ battery claim.
Â
Discussion. This opinion shows that an actor’s intent to touch or make contact, such as his decision to put his arm in motion throwing an object, is not enough to give rise to battery. The actor must have specifically intended to cause the harm or offense which results from the touching.