Picard v. Barry Pontiac-Buick, Inc.

Last updated

Picard v. Barry Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 654 A.2d 690 (R.I. 1995) is a Rhode Island Supreme Court case often cited in tort law text books to explain the legal concept of battery.

Rhode Island Supreme Court the highest court in the U.S. state of Rhode Island

The Rhode Island Supreme Court is the court of last resort in the U.S. State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. The Court consists of a Chief Justice and four Associate Justices, all selected by the Governor of Rhode Island from candidates vetted by the Judicial Nominating Commission. Each justice enjoys lifetime tenure and no mandatory retirement age, similar to Federal judges. Justices may be removed only if impeached for improper conduct by a vote of the Rhode Island House of Representatives and convicted by trial in the Rhode Island Senate.

A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. It can include the intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy, and many other things.

At common law, battery is the tort of intentionally and voluntarily bringing about an unconsented harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them. Unlike assault, in which the fear of imminent contact may support a civil claim, battery involves an actual contact. The contact can be by one person of another, with or without a weapon, or the contact may be by an object brought about by the tortfeasor. For example, the intentionally bringing a car into contact with another person, or the intentional striking of a person with a thrown rock, is a battery.

Picard was unhappy about her mechanic's brake inspection and contacted a local television news "troubleshooter" reporter. When she returned for a reinspection, she took a picture of the mechanic inspecting the brakes on her car. The mechanic turned around, approached her, pointed his finger at her, and questioned her taking a picture of him. He intentionally touched her camera with his finger. Picard claimed that when she spun around her back was injured. [1]

Mechanic profession

A mechanic is an artisan, technician or skilled tradesperson who uses tools to build or repair machinery.

Troubleshooting is a form of problem solving, often applied to repair failed products or processes on a machine or a system. It is a logical, systematic search for the source of a problem in order to solve it, and make the product or process operational again. Troubleshooting is needed to identify the symptoms. Determining the most likely cause is a process of elimination—eliminating potential causes of a problem. Finally, troubleshooting requires confirmation that the solution restores the product or process to its working state.

The trial court awarded Picard $60,366 in compensatory damages and an additional $6,350 in punitive damages. The Supreme Court held that the mechanic committed battery, because the mechanic caused an offensive or unconsensual touching upon the body of Picard, regardless of the mechanic's intent to injure. Items attached to or identified with the plaintiff's body, such as the camera, also count. The court also found that the mechanic committed assault. The court vacated the award and remanded for a new trial on damages.

An assault is the act of inflicting physical harm or unwanted physical contact upon a person or, in some specific legal definitions, a threat or attempt to commit such an action. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal and/or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and tort law.

Notes

  1. "Chapter 12". Professor Zittrain, Harvard Law school. Retrieved 2008-05-05.

Related Research Articles

At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages.

Kazaa peer-to-peer file sharing application

Kazaa Media Desktop started as a peer-to-peer file sharing application using the FastTrack protocol licensed by Joltid Ltd. and operated as Kazaa by Sharman Networks. Kazaa was subsequently under license as a legal music subscription service by Atrinsic, Inc. According to one of its creators, Jaan Tallinn, Kazaa is pronounced ka-ZAH.

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

Caveat emptor is Latin for "Let the buyer beware". Generally, caveat emptor is the contract law principle that controls the sale of real property after the date of closing, but may also apply to sales of other goods. The phrase caveat emptor and its use as a disclaimer of warranties arise from the fact that buyers typically have less information than the seller about the good or service they are purchasing. This quality of the situation is known as 'information asymmetry'. Defects in the good or service may be hidden from the buyer, and only known to the seller.

Carlie's Law was a bill introduced in the United States Congress by Representative Katherine Harris (R-FL), with the support of Nick Lampson (D-TX) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), in response to the kidnapping, rape and murder of 11-year-old Carlie Brucia by Joseph P. Smith in Florida in February 2004. Smith was on probation at the time of Brucia's murder, having been released from state prison thirteen months prior.

Martin v. Ziherl, 607 S.E.2d 367, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Virginia holding that the Virginia criminal law against fornication was unconstitutional. The court's decision followed the 2003 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, which established the constitutionally-protected right of adults to engage in private, consensual sex.

In law, false light is a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. The privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to protection from publicity which puts the person in a false light to the public. That right is balanced against the First Amendment right of free speech.

<i>Norberg v Wynrib</i>

Norberg v Wynrib, [1992] 2 SCR 226 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the fiduciary duty between doctors and patients, and on the limits of consent as a defence in sexual assault.

The GM A platform (1936) was a rear wheel drive automobile platform designation used by General Motors from at least 1936 until 1958, and again from 1964 to 1981. In 1982, GM introduced a new front wheel drive A platform, and existing intermediate rear wheel drive products were redesignated as G-bodies.

Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 (1998), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that if there is to be an award of statutory damages in a copyright infringement case, then the opposing party has the right to demand a jury trial.

Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Nigh, 543 U.S. 50 (2004), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress's 1995 amendment of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) left unaltered the prior minimum and maximum limits of $100 and $1000 prescribed for statutory damages awarded to plaintiffs in TILA violation suits involving personal-property loans.

Minita Chico-Nazario is a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. She was appointed to the court by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on February 10, 2004.

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (1985), was a Supreme Court case which held that a credit reporting agency could be liable in defamation if it carelessly relayed false information that a business had declared bankruptcy when in fact it had not.

Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. was a lawsuit against Chevron Nigeria Ltd., a subsidiary of Chevron USA, which went to trial in 2008 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs, Nigerian citizens who had been injured during or who had survived human rights violations perpetrated by Nigerian military personnel, alleged that the Chevron subsidiary backed the military action and that the parent company thus should bear liability in US courts for the resultant fallout. The suit was decided on December 1, 2008, when nine jurors unanimously agreed Chevron was not liable for any of the numerous allegations. Judgment was entered the next day, officially exonerating Chevron.

Carol Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc., was a decision by the California Court of Appeals, which ruled that the "actual malice" required under California law for imposition of punitive damages is distinct from the "actual malice" required by New York Times v. Sullivan to be liable for defaming a "public figure" and that the National Enquirer is not a "newspaper" for the purposes of California libel law.

Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989), is a United States Supreme Court case involving freedom of the press and privacy rights. After The Florida Star newspaper accidentally revealed the full name of a rape victim it got from a police report, the victim sued for damages. State law made it illegal for a publication to print a rape victim's name, and the victim was awarded damages. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled the imposition of damages for truthfully publishing public information violates the First Amendment.