Brief Fact Summary. Snyder, a nurse, (Plaintiff) brought an action against Turk, a doctor, (Defendant) for intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil battery, and slander. The trial court (Ohio) dismissed her complaint with prejudice and granted a directed verdict. The Plaintiff sought review.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if (a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and (b) an offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.
Battery is defined as an intentional, unconsented-to contact with another.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Could a reasonable jury conclude that there was intent to commit a battery?
Held. Yes. Since a reasonable mind could infer intent on the Defendant’s part, the issue was one of fact for a jury. The lower court thus erred in its directed verdict. The court reversed and remanded the lower court’s order.
Concurrence. The concurrence merely summarizes the majority’s reasoning, stating: “I believe the evidence in the record was sufficient for a reasonable juror to conclude that the Defendant had committed a battery when he allegedly grabbed the Plaintiff and brought her down to within twelve inches of the surgical wound.”
Discussion. Snyder v. Turk draws the fine distinction between the intent to cause actual harm and the intent to cause either harmful or offensive contact. The element of intent becomes an issue for the trier of fact thus rendering a directed verdict improper.