Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications, Inc.
634 N.E.2d 697 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)
Tort Law
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Plaintiff guest brought an action against defendants, radio studio, host, and smoker, for battery, invasion of privacy, and a violation of a statute . The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio) dismissed the guest's complaint. The guest sought review.
FACTS:
-A guest entered the radio studio to make a public radio appearance with the host.
-At the host's urging, the smoker repeatedly blew cigar smoke in the guest's face.
-The guest contended that his complaint was sufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
HOLDING
-The court held that when the smoker intentionally blew cigar smoke in the guest's face he committed a battery.
ANALYSIS
-The court held that no matter how trivial the incident, a battery was actionable, even if damages were only one dollar.
-The court held that the guest's other claims, invasion of his privacy and violation of a local non-smoking regulation, were not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
-The regulation created rights for nonsmokers that did not exist at common law. There was no implied private remedy for violation of the non-smoking regulation because sanctions were provided to enforce the regulation.
RULES
-An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other, and a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results; or an offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.
-In determining if a person is liable for a battery, the Ohio Supreme Court has adopted the rule that contact which is offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity is offensive contact.
-It has defined "offensive" to mean "disagreeable or nauseating or painful because of outrage to taste and sensibilities or affronting insultingness.
-Furthermore, tobacco smoke, as "particulate matter, has the physical properties capable of making contact
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the portion of the judgment dismissing the guest's claims of invasion of privacy and violation of a local smoking regulation but reversed the dismissal of the battery claim. The court remanded the cause for further proceedings.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
634 N.E.2d 697 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)
Tort Law
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Plaintiff guest brought an action against defendants, radio studio, host, and smoker, for battery, invasion of privacy, and a violation of a statute . The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio) dismissed the guest's complaint. The guest sought review.
FACTS:
-A guest entered the radio studio to make a public radio appearance with the host.
-At the host's urging, the smoker repeatedly blew cigar smoke in the guest's face.
-The guest contended that his complaint was sufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
HOLDING
-The court held that when the smoker intentionally blew cigar smoke in the guest's face he committed a battery.
ANALYSIS
-The court held that no matter how trivial the incident, a battery was actionable, even if damages were only one dollar.
-The court held that the guest's other claims, invasion of his privacy and violation of a local non-smoking regulation, were not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
-The regulation created rights for nonsmokers that did not exist at common law. There was no implied private remedy for violation of the non-smoking regulation because sanctions were provided to enforce the regulation.
RULES
-An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other, and a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results; or an offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.
-In determining if a person is liable for a battery, the Ohio Supreme Court has adopted the rule that contact which is offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity is offensive contact.
-It has defined "offensive" to mean "disagreeable or nauseating or painful because of outrage to taste and sensibilities or affronting insultingness.
-Furthermore, tobacco smoke, as "particulate matter, has the physical properties capable of making contact
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the portion of the judgment dismissing the guest's claims of invasion of privacy and violation of a local smoking regulation but reversed the dismissal of the battery claim. The court remanded the cause for further proceedings.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment