Snyder v Turk Ohio 1993

Facts

D is a surgeon performing gall-bladder surgery.

Surgery not going well and D frustrated with P's, the scrub nurse's, performance.

D grabbed Ps shoulder and pulled her face toward the surgical opening.

Procedural History:

-claims – Battery, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress

Directed verdict in trial court for D because there was no proof of an intent to inflict personal injury.

Plaintiff appealing the directed verdict. In appellate courtIssue

If there was battery due to harmful or offensive contact including contact which is offensive to a
reasonable sense of personal dignity when the D grabbed Ps shoulder and pulled her face toward the
surgical opening.

In full case, there was 3 claims, 3 issues

Rule
Battery requires intentional, unconsented-to contact that causes harmful or offensive contact. Offensive
contact does not require the infliction of personal injury.

Rule comes from restatemnet of tortsApplication

The elements of battery for intentional, unconsented to contact were met by the surgeon (D) grabbing
the shoulder of the P and committing an offensive act.

Opposing argument was that there was no intent to inflict personal injury.

Court found that the offensive contact was sufficient even without personal injury.

Conclusion

Court decided that Dr. Turk intended to commit an offensive contact.

(they sustained the assignment of error, assignment of error being the error(s) that the appelant was
saying the trial court made)
Questions:

What is the procedural posture (or procedural history of the case)?

See above

What is the issue on appeal?

If the trial court made a mistake in granting the D (Dr. Truk) that there was no commission of a battery
absent proof of a n intent to inflict personal injury.

What is the Appellate Court's holding?

Court decided that Dr. Turk intended to commit an offensive contact.

(they sustained the assignment of error, assignment of error being the error(s) that the appelant was
saying the trial court made)

What is the rule derived from this case?

Battery requires intentional, unconsented-to contact that causes harmful or offensive contact. Offensive
contact does not require the infliction of personal injury.

What did the D claim was flawed with the P's claim for battery so that the claim should be
dismissed?

D claimed that there was no battery liability issue because of the absence of evidence that he intended
to inflict personal injury.

What are the elements of battery?

-Intentional act
-Harmful or Offensive contact (offensive contact is offensive to a reasonable sens of personal dignity)

If defendant did not intend to harm, how could the plaintiff prove intent?

Even if they did not intend to harm it can be proved that they intentional acted in a way that led to
offensive contact.

Why did the court reverse the trial judge's decision to dismiss the case before it went to the jury?
They believed that reasonable minds could conclude that D intended to commit an offensive contact.