Chapter 6 - § 6.3 • ELEMENTS DEFINED

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 6.3 • ELEMENTS DEFINED

§ 6.3.1—Intended to Cause an Offensive or Harmful Physical Contact with the Plaintiff or Intended to Place the Plaintiff in Apprehension of Such a Contact

In White v. Muniz,⁹ the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that dual intent was necessary for a claim of battery to succeed. A defendant must intend to directly or indirectly contact the plaintiff (or place the plaintiff in imminent apprehension of such contact) and intend that the contact be harmful or offensive.¹⁰

In White, the estate of an elderly woman who suffered from Alzheimer's disease was sued for battery after she struck a caretaker who was attempting to change her adult diaper. Despite the fact that the defendant was mentally ill, the court applied the usual definition for intent, ruling that insanity is neither an exception nor a defense to the element of intent for battery.¹¹ In doing so, the court relied on Horton v. Reaves.¹² (In Horton, two young boys, three and four years old, dropped an infant child on her head, ultimately crushing her skull. When claims of battery were brought against the boys, the inquiry surrounding the element of intent was whether they intended to harm the baby.) Reversing the Colorado Court of Appeals, the supreme court ruled in White that, age notwithstanding, a defendant must intend to make harmful contact, or have some awareness of the natural consequences or offensiveness of the act.¹³ It held, "We find that the law of Colorado requires the jury to conclude that the defendant both intended the contact and intended it to be harmful or offensive."¹⁴ In other words, contact without the intent to harm or an understanding of its offensiveness or wrongfulness is not battery.¹⁵

Both White and Horton employed the definition found in the Restatement (Second) of Torts,¹⁶ which describes intent as doing an act with "the purpose of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact . . . or with knowledge that such a result will, to a substantial certainty, be produced."¹⁷ Additionally, and notably, the two decisions establish that insanity and infancy do not create special rules for the intent element of battery, but instead are simply characteristics of the alleged tortfeasor, like education or mindset, that provide context for a jury to consider when deciding whether the requisite intent for battery has been met. As a result, an infant or a mentally ill individual can still be found liable for battery, but the element of intent will likely be more difficult to prove.¹⁸

While the intent to harm or offend is necessary, there is no requirement that the defendant either foresee or intend the amount of actual harm that occurs.¹⁹ The defendant will nonetheless be liable for the full extent of resulting bodily harm to the plaintiff.²⁰ Indeed, a plaintiff may prove intent even when the defendant has no desire to bring about physical harm. Offensive contact, differing from harmful contact, is defined as...