1063-64 The Quilling Case Summary

Mike and Donald were walking in the park with their wives. A heated argument ensued which evolved into a fist fight. Donald punched Mike in the eye and caused Mike to lose sight in his eye. During the fight between the two, Donald’s wife, Melania pulled off her high heel shoe and began striking Mike over the head causing severe injury. Is a defendant who punches another person in the eye liable for battery? Is a defendant who hits another person on the head with a shoe resulting in injuries liable for battery? Does a plaintiff who defends himself from a battery comparatively at fault and therefore liable for contributing to his own injuries? The issue presented is whether Donald committed battery on Mike when he repeatedly punched him in the eye with his fist. The elements of civil …show more content…
Id at 1063 The District Court of Appeals ruled that battery consists of the infliction of a harmful or offensive contact upon another with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent, they noted that although “the complaint was inartfully drafted” it did in fact state a valid cause of action. Id at 1063-64 The Quilling’s case is similar to our case as Donald inflicted harmful contact upon Mike without his consent causing permanent injury. In a similar case, the respondent wrapped his arm around the petitioner in a friendly unsolicited hug, immediately after the hug the petitioner suffered a sharp pain in the back of her neck, ear, and base of her skull. Spivey v. Battaglia, 258 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1972) The conduct of the respondent resulted in the petitioner suffering from paralysis on the left side of her face and mouth. Id at 816 The issue, in this case, was whether the respondent’s actions were negligent or intentional. Id at 816 The court ruled “an act becomes intentional