Jasmine Anderson

Refer to Morgan v. Greenwaldt at the end of the Chapter 10. Identify the citation,
holding, and disposition.

CITATION: Morgan v. Greenwaldt, 786 So.2d 1037 (Miss. 2001). Genia A. Morgan,
Plaintiff- Appellant; Brtenda Greenwaldt, Susan Brotherton, Melinda Leah Lewis, and St.
Dominic- Jackson Memorial Hospital, Defendants-Appellees.

HOLDING: The plaintiff’s consent to treatment included placement in a secure

environment, thus precluding her false imprisonment claim. The defendant presented no
evidence to support either an assault or battery claim. The defendant did not show the
necessary intent, or gross negligence conduct required for damages can be assessed for
intentional infliction or emotional distress.

DISPOSITION: The trial court’s granting of a directed verdict on the issues of false
imprisonment, assault and battery, gross negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress was affirmed.
 Assignment 10 B. Brief of Commonwealth v. Shea
Citation: Commonwealth v. Shea, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 7. 644 N.E.2d 244
(1995)
Parties: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Petitioner
John J. Shea, Respondent
Facts: In June 15, 1995, the defendant together with his friend, invited
to their boat two women who were out sunbathing on the
shores of the Charles River. Once they were aboard the boat,
the defendant embarked for the open sea. When they were
offshore, the defendant stopped the vessel. He then made
disrobed the women and made sexual advances at them. He
ignored their protests that he stop his uncouth behavior. The
women protested and demanded they be returned to Boston. In
reaction to their demands, the Defendant threw the two women
overboard. The women were rescued after they managed to cry
for help and had swam within hearing distance of a nearby
boat. Based on evidence pointing to these facts, the jury
convicted the defendant of attempted murder, assault, battery
by use of a dangerous weapon which is the ocean and indecent
assault and battery. On appeal, the defendant argued that the
trial judge had erroneously failed to grant him his request for a
trial continuance as well as his motion seeking to preclude the
use of a videotape by the Commonwealth to support their case.
Prior Proceedings: The Petitioner, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, appealed
the decision of the Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
Issue: Whether the ocean can qualify as dangerous weapon used in the
commission of assault and battery.
Holding: For the purposes of the Section 15A of Massachusetts General
Laws, the ocean is not a dangerous weapon for purposes of the
commission of assault and battery.
Reasoning: The Massachusetts General Laws, under Chapter 265 Section
15A lays down three elements that constitute assault by use of a
dangerous weapon. First, touching of the weapon must have
taken place, no matter the degree of touching. Second, it is
required that the weapon must be inherently dangerous. Third,
there must be intention to use the weapon in a potentially
harmful and dangerous way. It is not enough for the
Commonwealth to prove that the defendant behaved
negligently towards the victim, who is in a manner that
reasonably careful individual would not have. The defendant
acted recklessly if he or she had or should have had the
knowledge that such an action was likely to lead to significant
harm to the target person but he or she nevertheless went ahead
and acted in that manner. It is not necessary that the defendant
intended to injure or cause harm to the victim in question or
 that he could foresee that harm would result. The court
reasoned that even though the ocean can be considered as
dangerous in its natural state, it does not nevertheless fall
within the ambit of Section 15A. This, the court found, is
because the ocean does not likely occasioned death. The court
while relying on case law, reasoned further that it need not to
consider whether the particular weapon in this case, the ocean,
is dangerous as used or is dangerous per se. the court noted that
all the cases in the discussion of dangerous weapons share a
common thread that is consistent with the definition of
“dangerous weapons”. The court observed that this common
thread in all the cases is the weapon in question, whether
dangerous per se or as used, was an instrument which the
batterer control whether by possession or by authority over it,
for its use in the intentional application of force.
Disposition: The indictment for the charge of kidnapping and attempted
murder was affirmed. The indictment for the charge of assault
and battery by means of a dangerous weapon was reversed.
Comments: The Ocean was intently used to punish the two women in this
case. The intent was to occasion fatal consequences. If it was
not for the fact that there was another boat in the vicinity, the
women thrown would have drowned in the ocean.
Reference:
[1] Commonwealth v. Shea, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 7. 644 N.E.2d 244 (1995).