D teasingly put arms around P in lunch room at work. D knew P to be very shy.
P suffered a sharp pain in the back of the neck and ear. P ended up paralyzed on the left side of her face.
P sued D for negligence, and assault and battery. Trial court dismissed the assault and battery charge due to SOL reasons.
Procedural History:
Trial court dismissed through summary judgment P's claim for negligence.
FL district court affirmed.
FL Supreme Court found for P, reversed and remanded.
Issues:
Is a party who acts with knowledge and substantial certainty that a particular result will follow liable for all results flowing from his act regardless of how unforeseeable or unreasonable?
Holding/Rule:
A party who acts with knowledge and substantial certainty that a particular result will follow is liable for all results flowing from his act regardless of how unforeseeable or unreasonable.
Reasoning:
Assault and battery is not negligence.
Assault and battery is intentional while negligence connotes an unintentional act.
Knowledge and appreciation of a risk, short of substantial certainty is not the equivalent of intent. It is unintentional and qualifies as negligence.
A D who has the requisite intent for an intentional tort is liable for all injuries or harms that flow from his actions (no matter how remote or unreasonable).
In an action based on negligence, the D is only liable for those harms that are reasonably foreseeable.
Dissent:
None.
Notes:
P wanted this action to be negligence, not assault and battery.
Court doesn't think it's fair to let the D go unscathed.
