White v. Muniz

Facts

In October 1993, Barbara White placed her eighty-three year-old grandmother, Helen Everly, in an assisted living facility, the Beatrice Hover Personal Care Center. Within days, Everly began acting erratically. She became agitated easily and sometimes acted aggressively toward others. On November 21, 1993, a caregiver asked Sherry Lynn Muniz, a shift supervisor at the center, to change Everly's adult diaper. The caregiver warned that Everly was not cooperating. Everly first refused. Muniz then thought Everly had relented. But as Muniz reached toward the diaper, Everly struck Muniz on the jaw and ordered her out of the room. The next day, a doctor examined Everly and diagnosed primary degenerative dementia of the Alzheimer type, senile onset, with depression. The doctor found a progressive loss of function, including loss of memory, impulse control and judgment. In November 1994, Muniz sued Everly for assault and battery. At trial, the parties disagreed about the mental state needed for an intentional tort. The trial court told the jury that dementia did not prevent a finding that Everly acted intentionally, and that the jury could so find if she intended what she did, even if her reasons were irrational. But the jury also had to find that she appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct. The trial court viewed Everly's mental state as comparable to a child's.

Issues

1. Does the intent element of assault and battery require proof that the defendant intended not only to contact another person but also intended the contact to be harmful or offensive?
2. Must a jury find that a mentally incapacitated adult, like a child under Horton v. Reaves, appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct before holding her liable for assault or battery?

Holding

Colorado requires proof that the actor intended the contact and intended it to be harmful or offensive, whatever the actor's characteristics. The trial court's instruction, which required the jury to find that Everly appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct, was adequate, so the court of appeals erred in reversing the verdict for the defense.