Waters v Blackshear
Citation: Waters v Blackshear, 591 N.E.2d 184 (Mass. 1992)
Parties:
- Maurice Waters (plaintiff)
- Unnamed minor defendant
Facts:
- Defendant (is a minor, but somewhat older than 7) placed a firecracker in the shoe of plaintiff (7 years old) and lit it. P sustained burn injuries when it went off in his shoe.
Procedural History:
- P wanted recovery on grounds of negligence. The judge instructed the jury that intentional acts could not be negligent, so the jury ruled in favor of P. The judge allowed D’s motion for JNOV on the ground that the evidence showed intentional, not negligent conduct.
Issue:
- Was the defendant’s conduct battery?
Rule:
- Battery occurs when:
- (a) A person acts intending to cause a harmful/offensive contact or place someone in immediate apprehension of such contact, AND
- (b) A harmful or offensive contact occurs
Holding:
- Yes, his conduct was battery
Reasoning:
- Maurice intentionally put the firecrackers in the plaintiff’s shoe, and as a result of that an offensive contact occurred. Under established tort law, intentional conduct (e.g., battery) and negligent conduct are mutually exclusive. The D’s possible lack of intent to cause the specific injuries or his failure to appreciate the full consequences is irrelevant; intent to cause the contact suffices. The fact that D was a minor did not alter the analysis, as there was no evidence he lacked the capacity to understand the harmful nature of his act. Because the evidence could only support a finding of intentional tort—not negligence—the jury’s verdict was unsupported, and judgment notwithstanding the verdict was proper.
Decision:
- Affirmed
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. This case brief and the others on this website are based solely on my personal understanding of the underlying case. They emphasize the points that my law professors emphasized. You should use them merely as a supplement to your own studies.