Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10K views

    Wagner v. State

    Uploaded by

    ankurpatel96706
    Tracy Wagner was battered by Sam Giese, a mentally disabled patient of the Utah State Development Center, while waiting in line at a K-Mart. Wagner sued the State of Utah since Giese was in their custody. The trial court dismissed the claim, finding the State was immune from battery suits. The appellate court affirmed. The Utah Supreme Court also found that Giese's actions constituted battery under the legal definition, as his contact was deliberate and harmful, and that mental capacity is not relevant to liability for battery. Therefore, the State was immune and the dismissal was proper.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Wagner v. State

    Uploaded by

    ankurpatel96706
    10K views2 pages
    Tracy Wagner was battered by Sam Giese, a mentally disabled patient of the Utah State Development Center, while waiting in line at a K-Mart. Wagner sued the State of Utah since Giese was in their custody. The trial court dismissed the claim, finding the State was immune from battery suits. The appellate court affirmed. The Utah Supreme Court also found that Giese's actions constituted battery under the legal definition, as his contact was deliberate and harmful, and that mental capacity is not relevant to liability for battery. Therefore, the State was immune and the dismissal was proper.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Tracy Wagner was battered by Sam Giese, a mentally disabled patient of the Utah State Development Center, while waiting in line at a K-Mart. Wagner sued the State of Utah since Giese was in their custody. The trial court dismissed the claim, finding the State was immune from battery suits. The appellate court affirmed. The Utah Supreme Court also found that Giese's actions constituted battery under the legal definition, as his contact was deliberate and harmful, and that mental capacity is not relevant to liability for battery. Therefore, the State was immune and the dismissal was proper.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    10K views2 pages

    Wagner v. State

    Uploaded by

    ankurpatel96706
    Tracy Wagner was battered by Sam Giese, a mentally disabled patient of the Utah State Development Center, while waiting in line at a K-Mart. Wagner sued the State of Utah since Giese was in their custody. The trial court dismissed the claim, finding the State was immune from battery suits. The appellate court affirmed. The Utah Supreme Court also found that Giese's actions constituted battery under the legal definition, as his contact was deliberate and harmful, and that mental capacity is not relevant to liability for battery. Therefore, the State was immune and the dismissal was proper.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Wagner v.

    State

    122 P.3d 599 (Utah 2005)

    Parties:

    Plaintiff – Tracy Wagner – Person who was battered by Sam Giese


    while waiting in line at K-Mart.

    Defendant – State of Utah – Since Sam Giese was under the custody of
    a State operated mental facility, State of Utah is a party to the action.

    Facts:

    P was standing in the customer service line at her local K-Mart when
    suddenly Sam Giese, a mentally disabled patient of the Utah State Development
    Center, attacked her from behind. Mr. Giese became violent and took P by the head
    and hair and threw her to the ground. Utah State Development Center employees
    accompanied Mr. Giese to K-Mart because he had a history of violent behavior and
    presented a potential danger to the public if not properly supervised.

    Procedural Posture:

    P filed a claim for recovery for injuries P sustained when a mentally


    handicapped man attacked her while he was in the custody of the state. P’s claim
    was dismissed at trial court. Court of appeals affirmed on the grounds that the
    attack was a battery and the State was immune from suit. P appeals again.

    Issue:

    Whether Sam Giese’s actions are sufficient to state a claim for battery even
    though he is mentally handicapped?

    Holding:

    The court found that Mr. Giese’s actions constituted battery and since the
    State has immunity from battery claims, the Court of Appeals was correct in
    granting the 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim.

    Legal Reasoning:

    The court tries to define what is the correct definition of battery. The court
    looks to the Restatement of Torts to get a definition. The court finds that there are
    two elements for a battery claim

    1. Contact must be deliberate.


    2. Contact must be harmful or offensive.

    Intent:
    The court finds that an actor only needs to intend to make contact with
    another and not intend harm or offense through his deliberate contact.

    Mental Capacity:

    The court also found that the mental capacity of a person is not relevant to be
    liable for battery. The court finds that “an insane person is liable for his torts.”

    Harmful or Offensive Contact:

    The court finds that harmful or offensive contact is simply one to which the
    recipient of the contract has not consented with directly or indirectly. This
    includes all physical contacts that the person either expressly communicates are
    unwanted or those contact to which no reasonable person would consent.

    You might also like