I've been struggling to understand an early case we read in torts all semester, and my professor and study guides have been no help. It seems to get to the core of what an intentional tort is, and I'm afraid if I don't figure it out, I'm doomed.

Maybe someone on here can help.

The case is Spivey v. Battaglia, where a man gave an unsolicited hug to a coworker. The hug led to paralysis in the woman. The court determined that it did not constitute a battery because the D did not have "substantial certainty" that such a bizarre thing would happened.

The case is confusing for two reasons. In considering battery, you're not looking at the harm itself, but the ACT of touching. If that act is harmful or offensive, then it's a battery. Even without the paralysis, isn't an unsolicited hug an offensive contact and therefore a battery?

What's more, isn't the rule that you're liable for all unforeseen consequences? (You take the P as he is)

Any guidance would be appreicated.

I don't know the case but here goes (take this w/ a grain of sale, havn't touched torts in over a year).
A) I'm not sure an unsolicitated hug from a co-worker really counts as offensive conduct (obviously it depends on the situation and the relationship btw the ppl.
B) From the way you are describing it, it simply sounds as if the court is playing fast and lose w/ the consequences doctrine.

Edit: because Its 2 am and Im pretty sure that didn't make sense.

We may never get to intentional torts in our class, but wikipedia says that "harmful and offensive" is measured according to a reasonable person standard. Hugging a coworker may not be reasonably construed as harmful or offensive contact.

Also, your explanation of the eggshell plaintiff doctrine is overly broad. You're not liable for all unforeseen consequences. Rather, if you're liable for a harm, you're liable for the unforeseen (or unforeseeable) extent of that harm. In negligent torts, at least, if it is not foreseeable that your action will result in a harm, there may be a lack of proximate cause and/or duty. Eg: say you throw a marshmallow over a wall and it hits an eggshell plaintiff and kills him. You're not liable for battery because there was no intent. You're probably not liable for negligence either, because it's not foreseeable that throwing a marshmallow over a wall puts anyone at a risk of harm. Thus, not-withstanding the eggshell plaintiff rule, the unforseeability of the harm bars you from liability.

Isn't that the point of the eggshell rule though, at least in theory. You are responsible for all consequences, even if they are unforeseeable. I think some courts, like the one here, are uncomfortable with this (for obvious reasons) and place some limits on foreseeability.

But doesn't the eggshell rule require a reasonable likelihood of harm? The eggshell rule covers what happens when the harm is much greater than anticipated. But if it was not reasonable to foresee any harm, you can't call an act intentional. In throwing a marshmallow over a wall, no one would think that would harm anyone. There is no reasonable foreseeability of harm to anyone. If you throw a rock, there is reasonable foreseeability of harm.

The major case we covered on an eggshell victim was one in which a kid kicked another in the shin. The victim had some sort of medical condition that weakened his bones, so the kick shattered his shin. The court held the kicker liable for battery and for all of the damage caused, under the eggshell rule. The reason? Kicking someone in the shins will a. be offensive and b. cause harm. That the harm was greater than expected is irrelevant, thanks to the eggshell rule.

In the Spivey v. Battaglia case, first of all, it's unlikely that a hug would be considered offensive. Remember, offensive isn't determined by whether the act causes harm. It's determined by whether a reasonable person, given the relationship between the parties, would find the contact offensive. Without knowing the facts of the case beyond what OP provided, it's unlikely that the defendant randomly hugged a coworker he was unfriendly with. Most likely, they were friendly. So a hug, on its own, would not have been offensive. Further, the act has to be intended to cause harmful or offensive contact. Also, if the Plaintiff gave permission to hug, then there can be no battery. Again, I don't have the facts here, but if, based on their past relationship, there was an understanding that hugging was okay, there can be no battery, so the eggshell rule never comes into play anyway.

That interpretation of the eggshell plaintiff rule would eviscerate duty/proximate cause...

True, but it doesn't really matter. You don't need to consider duty when dealing with intentional torts. Also, proximate cause does not play a significant role in intentional torts either. It actually makes the analysis of intentional torts a lot easier than the analysis of negligence.

this was the 2nd case we did in torts this semester. This is a public policy type of case. P sued for battery, assault, and negligence, but the statute of limitations had run on battery and assault. D motioned for summary judgment claiming he had committed battery and assault, court feeling bad for a paralyzed woman w/ no remedy ruled that he had committed an act of negligence, not battery etc., thus allowing her the opportunity to recover from him. [Although my professor is a visiting federal crt judge from canada so he tends to focus on judges subjective feelings about a case]

Court said D was still liable for the consequences of his unsolicited hug, though the unintended consequences of a friendly hug could not be construed as assault and battery... hope that helps

So the way OP originally phrased the rule: "you're liable for all unforeseen consequences".

This is not that confusing for intentional torts, where foreseeability usually isn't an element (or a test of an element) of liability. It's very confusing for negligent torts, where foreseeability is a test for both duty and for proximate cause. An imprecise definition of the eggshell plaintiff rule will trip you up if you invoke it when the negligence claim otherwise fails because the zone of risk or the potential for harm is not foreseeable.

our torts professor broke it down like this:

there are two approaches to battery:

1st: 1) intent to contact 2) the contact is harmful or offensive (forseeability of harm is irrelevant)

2nd: 1) intent to cause harmful or offensive contact

see the difference? see how it applies in spivey?

This. It's not how the E&E really describes battery, but my professor did it the same way saying that just the intent to contact may be enough on it's own.

Exactly this. It's just a jurisdictional split on what intent is req'd.

what a trainwreck of a thread

I think this is the single-intent vs. dual-intent jurisdiction with most states following the single-intent rule.

In a dual intent jurisdiction, I would agree with rayiner's analysis on the battery claim. However, in a single intent jurisdiction, there is a battery claim

single intent meaning intend the contact, dual intent meaning intend contact and intend that said contact is harmful or offensive ? If so, just never heard it labeled.

yeah. At least that's how my professor labeled the two approaches.

My professor (as well as the casebook we're using?) used the terminology of dual intent, and taught dual intent as only being applicable when the D has a mental disability.

I am not so sure about that. Its a minority rule (I think Colorado follows this) but where its followed, its not limited to mental disabilities. Although it would make sense to add that element for people with diminished mental abilities, I thought in torts at least, they were also also held to a reasonable person standard and not a diminished standard.

You're correct, it is a minority rule, but our prof just said to mention the rule if we see a battery hypo that includes a person with mental disability -- otherwise to disregard dual intent. Just the way he teaches it.

I get that you need to discuss both approaches when evaluating a battery claim. I don't see why the mental disability matters

EDIT: nevermind.

The only thing I can think of is some hybriding of the criminal mens rea concept. If a person w/ a mental disability only intends the contact, but does not intend the harm - perhaps this dual intent acts as an end around against liability.