Case Brief #2

1. Case Name: Spivey(Plaintiff/Petitioner)) v. Battaglia(Defendant/Respondent)

2. Court & Date: Supreme Court of Florida, 1972
3. Procedural History: Trial Court granted the Respondent’s motion for summary
judgment. The district court affirmed on the authority of McDonald v. Ford. The Supreme
Court of Florida did not agree with the finding of intent in the current case as related to
Mcdonald v. Ford. Trial Court misapplied the rule in McDonald v. Ford.
4. Questions Presented: 1. Can the Petitioner's action be maintained on the negligence
count or did the Respondent’s conduct amount to an assault and battery as a matter of
law that would bar the suit under the two-year statute which had already run?
5. Trigger Facts: Both the Petitioner and the Respondent were employees of Battaglia
Fruit Co. on January 21, 1965. During their lunch hour several employees, including the
petitioner and respondent, were seated on a work table in the plant of the company.
Respondent tried to tease Petitioner by putting his arm around her and pulling her
toward him. Right after this, Petitioner suffered a sharp pain in the back of her neck, ear,
and into the base of her skull. This left her paralyzed on the left side of her face and
mouth.
6. Plaintiff’s Argument: Plaintiff is suing the Respondent for 1) negligence and 2) assault
and battery.
7. Defendant’s Argument: Defendant raises the argument that the “friendly unsolicited
hug” was an assault and battery as a matter of law and was barred by the running of the
two-year statute of limitation on assault and battery.
8. Rule: Assault and battery are not negligence because they are intentional while
negligence is unintentional. Assault is not necessarily concerned with hostile intent or
desire to do harm. When one knows that a particular result was substantially certain to
follow, he will be thought to have intended it and be considered an assault. However, if
one knows there is a risk but does not believe with substantial certainty that the action
will occur, then it is not intent. A line was drawn as to where the danger becomes a
foreseeable risk that one would avoid (negligence) and substantial certainty (assault).
The Defendant becomes liable for reasonably foreseeable consequences.
9. Reasoning: It cannot be said that the Respondent would believe that what happened to
the Petitioner was substantially certain to occur.
10. Holding: 1.) The trial judge made an error when making their decision in granting
summary final judgment. The cause should have been submitted to the jury with
appropriate instructions regarding the elements of negligence. Certiorari is granted; the
district courts decision is quashed and remanded to reverse the summary final judgment
11. Main takeaway: Negligence is a relative term and its existence must depend in each
case upon the particular circumstances which surrounded the parties at the time and
place of the events upon which the controversy is based.
12. Other notes: