– Trial court would not allow instructions to injury in regards to battery.
– Issue on appeal was that the P thought that the court should have allowed instructions to the jury about battery – court denied her instruction request.
– Wallace (Plaintiff) was a parent of child at a school, she was there during when a fire alarm drill went off…She had a broken foot. Rosen (Defendant) was a teacher could not hear what the women said, tapped her on the shoulder, and told her it was a fire alarm. The tap leads to Wallace falling down the stairs and injuring herself.
Did the touching constitute an intentional tort?
– The mere knowledge and appreciation of a risk – something short of substantial certainty – is not intent.
– The line has to be draw by the courts at some point.
– Key distinction between negligence and intentional torts – negligence you are only liable for that negligence and not all the result elements – intentional torts, you are liable for the touching and all the subsequent results from that touching..
– The line has to be draw by the courts at some point where the known danger ceases to be only foreseeable risk which a reasonable person would avoid, and becomes in the mind of the actor a substantial certainty.
– Intentional touching for battery must be in a rude, insolent or angry manner i.e. that she intended to invade Wallace’s interests in a way that the law forbids.
– Reasonable person from that person’s vantage point…teacher, in a school, loud noises, loud kids…
– Affirmed in favor of the D (Rosen) no jury instructions in regards to battery were legit.