Wishnatsky v. Huey

Brief Fact Summary.

Without announcing his entry, Wishnatsky attempted to enter Crary’s office. Huey pushed the door closed, effectively pushing Wishnatsky back into the hallway.Wishnatsky sued Huey for battery.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A person is not liable for battery for mere offensive contact with another person that was unintentional and occurred due to the inevitable contact of a crowded world.

Facts.

Huey was talking to Peter Crary in Crary’s office. Without announcing his entry, Wishnatsky attempted to enter Crary’s office. Huey pushed the door closed, effectively pushing Wishnatsky back into the hallway. Wishnatsky reentered the office, and then Huey left.

Wishnatsky sued Huey for battery.

Issue.

Did Huey’s act of pushing the door closed constitute a battery on Wishnatsky?

Held.

Affirmed. No battery occurred.

Discussion.

While the original conception of battery was broadly defined as the “infliction of physical injury,” the definition has since been refined to distinguish unwanted contact with the inevitable contact of a crowded world. As such, battery is now defined as an act intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with another person.

An offensive contact is one that would offend the ordinary person and not someone who is unduly sensitive.

Here, Wishnatsky claimed that he was very sensitive to “evil spirits” and was “greatly disturbed by the demonic” as reasoning for his offense to Huey’s shutting the door. However, rude and abrupt conduct that is momentary, indirect, and incidental does not rise to the level of a battery.