White v. Muniz Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained скачать в хорошем качестве

White v. Muniz Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... White v. Muniz | 999 P.2d 814 (2000) A battery is committed when a defendant intends to cause a plaintiff a harmful or offensive bodily contact and such contact results. While some courts require both intent to make a bodily contact and intent to harm or offend, or dual intent, others require just intent to make bodily contact, or single intent. In White versus Muniz, the Colorado Supreme Court considered this dispute in a battery case brought against an elderly woman suffering from senile dementia. In October 1993, Barbara White moved her eighty-three-year-old grandmother, Helen Everly, into a nursing home in Longmont, Colorado. Within a few days of admission, Everly started exhibiting erratic behaviors and would occasionally act aggressively toward others in the nursing home. A doctor at Longmont United Hospital later diagnosed Everly with senile dementia. In November 1993, Sherry Muniz, a shift supervisor at the nursing home, was asked to change Everly's adult diaper. Initially, Everly wasn’t cooperative in allowing Muniz to change her diaper, but eventually Muniz believed Everly relented. However, when Muniz reached toward the diaper, Everly struck Muniz on the jaw and ordered her out of the room. Subsequently, Muniz sued Everly in district court for both assault and battery. Prior to trial, Everly passed away, and White, as personal representative of Everly’s estate, was substituted as the defendant. At trial, the jury was instructed that it could find that Everly intentionally caused Muniz’s injuries if it concluded that Everly both intended to strike Muniz and appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct. Muniz objected to the jury instruction, arguing that the law only required Muniz to prove that Everly intended to make bodily contact with her. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Everly’s estate, and Muniz appealed. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case, concluding that mentally deficient people could be liable for their intentional torts, regardless of their ability to understand the offensiveness of their actions. White, on behalf of Everly’s estate, then appealed the decision to the Colorado Supreme Court. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/white-v... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/white-v... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom   Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom   #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries