tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7536265591661518152.post7457803018586708118..comments2024-03-13T09:09:48.146-07:00Comments on Law School Case Briefs | Legal Outlines | Study Materials: Spivey v. Battaglia case brief summary LawSchoolCaseBriefs.nethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16912283726092434270noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7536265591661518152.post-70320328072543794752014-06-11T07:50:55.419-07:002014-06-11T07:50:55.419-07:00Spivey v Battaglia ( Supreme Court of Florida, 197...Spivey v Battaglia ( Supreme Court of Florida, 1972)<br /><br />Relevant Facts---- Spivey and Battaglia were employees of Battaglia Fruit Co. At lunch several employees were sitting around. Battaglia (defendant), as a joke because the plaintiff was shy, gave her a “friendly, unsolicited” hug. He pulled her head toward him and in the process injured her neck. She felt pain in the neck and ear and skull. As a result she was paralyzed on the left side of her face and mouth.<br /><br />Procedural History---- Spivey brought suit for negligence and assault and battery. The trial court dismissed the case on the defense that the 2 year statute of limitations had expired for an assault and battery. District Court (Appeals) affirmed that ruling, citing McDonald v. Ford ( * set of facts (page 21 love making attempts) proved it was an assault and battery. RULE OF LAW: Assault and battery is not negligence because it is intentional! Negligence denotes something unintentional. Assault does NOT need intent, only the knowledge with a substantial certainty that the results could occur.)<br /><br />Issue--- Is this an assault and battery or negligence? Assault and battery would have expired under 2 year statute of limitations, but negligence can stand up.<br /><br />Holding--- No assault and battery. Case should be sent to the jury to decide on the negligence count. Summary judgment reversed<br />Reasoning--- Unlike McDonald, there was no way that Battaglia could have known with substantial certainty that the results (injuries to Spivey) could occur. Therefore no assault occurred and the summary judgments and dismissals should not have occurred. Instead the case should be decided on negligence, which is decided by the differing circumstances in each case. <br /><br />Judgment/ Resulting Rule-- -Reversed summary final judgment. Difference between intentional and “substantial certainty rule” although both qualify for assault and battery must exist. It can affect things like penalties, statute of limitations, liability.LawSchoolCaseBriefs.nethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16912283726092434270noreply@blogger.com