WHITE V. MUNIZ, 999 P.2d 814 (2000) CASE BRIEF

WHITE V. MUNIZ

999 P.2d 814 (2000)

NATURE OF THE CASE: White (D) appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which determined that a mentally incapacitated adult should be held liable for her intentional tort even if she was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions.

FACTS: White placed her 83-year-old grandmother, Helen, in an assisted living facility. Within a few days of admission, Helen showed erratic behavior. She occasionally acted aggressively towards others and was agitated easily. A doctor concluded that she had progressive dementia, loss of memory, impulse control and judgment. She was suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Muniz (P) was asked to change Helen's adult diaper. P knew of Helen's problems and difficulties and at first refused to allow the diaper change. When P began to institute the change, Helen struck P in the jaw and ordered her out of the room. P sued Helen and D as her representative for assault and battery. The judge instructed the jury: 'A person intends to make a contact with another person if she does an act for the purpose of bringing about such a contact, whether or not she also intends that the contact be harmful or offensive. The fact that a person may suffer from Dementia, Alzheimer type, does not prevent a finding that she acted intentionally. You may find that she acted intentionally if she intended to do what she did, even though her reasons and motives were entirely irrational. However, she must have appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct.' P's counsel objected to the last sentence of the instruction about the appreciation of the offensive conduct. The jury gave the verdict to D and P appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed: most states continue to hold mentally deficient plaintiffs liable for their intentional acts regardless of their ability to understand the offensiveness of their actions. 'Where one of two innocent persons must suffer a loss, it should be borne by the one who occasioned it.' The court of appeals reasoned that insanity may not be asserted as a defense to an intentional tort, and thus, concluded that the trial court erred in 'instructing the jury that she must have appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct.' The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner