White v Muniz
Citation: White v Muniz, 999 P.2d 814 (Colo. 2000)
Parties:
- Sherry Muniz (plaintiff)
- Barbara White (defendant)
Facts:
- White is the granddaughter of Everly, an elderly woman with dementia. White placed Everly in a nursing home, where Muniz was a shift supervisor. Muniz was trying to change Everly’s diaper, and Everly hit her on the jaw.
Procedural History:
- Muniz filed suit in 1994 alleging assault and battery against Everly, and negligence by Barbara and Timothy White. Case proceeded to jury trial in 1997, where the jury rendered verdicts in favor of White
- Muniz appealed saying the jury’s instructions were wrong and the last sentence “However, she must have appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct” was misstating the law.
- Court of appeals reversed the decision and remanded the case for a new trial. Their reasoning was that most states continue to hold mentally deficient plaintiffs liable for their intentional acts regardless of their ability to understand the offensiveness of their actions. They ruled the trial court erred in “instructing the jury that Everly must have appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct”
- White appealed the Court of Appeals decision and this case is in the Supreme Court of CO
Issue:
- In the context of a mentally deficient inflictor, does an intentional tort require some proof that the offender not only intended to contact the other person, but also intended that the contact be harmful or offensive?
Rule:
- In a dual intent jurisdiction, a defendand must have (1) the intent to make contact, and (2) the intent that the contact be harmful or offensive.
Holding:
- A mentally impaired person (like the elderly Alzheimer’s patient in this case) cannot be liable for battery unless she understood that her contact was offensive or harmful.
Reasoning:
- Colorado is a dual intent jurisdiction. Some states only require the intent to contact. Since the defendant suffered from Alzheimer’s and lacked the cognitive ability to understand that striking the caregiver (Muniz) would be harmful or offensive, she did not meet the second intent requirement.
Decision:
- Reversed
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.