Taylor v Barwick
Citation: Taylor v Barwick, 1997 WL 527970 (Del. Super. Ct. 1997)
Parties:
- Moses Taylor (plaintiff)
- George Barwick (defendant)
Facts:
- Barwick was an inmate and Taylor was a staff Lt. at the jail. Barwick was touched on the back side with a tree branch by Taylor and sued for battery saying that he did it on purpose to offend him. Taylor admits that he touched him with the stick but says it was a complete accident and that he apologized right after.
Procedural History:
- Both parties moved for summary judgement
Issue:
- Should a plaintiff be awarded damages if there is a battery but no injury as a result?
Rule:
- When there is a battery but no injury, a plaintiff can recover nominal damages but nothing more
Holding:
- Yes, but only nominal damages
Reasoning:
- If all the elements of battery are met, damages can be granted. However, the purpose of damages is to put the plaintiff in the same position they would have been had the subject incident never happened. No better, no worse. Since he wasn’t injured, there isn’t really anything they can give Barwick to “make him whole” that would not just give him a windfall.
Decision:
- Motions for summary judgement were not granted to either side – it was granted for Barwick in the sense that Taylor can only recover nominal damages, but denied in respect to liability for battery.
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.