CourtCases2010

On these facts offensiveness is a question for the

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: t of approaching a co-worker from behind while on the job [**5] and attempting to massage her shoulders is, in the circumstances of this case, not capable of such summary treatment. On these facts, offensiveness is a question for the trier of fact to decide. See D.C. v. State, 436 So. 2d 203, 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983 ). The trial court also found that Paul failed to produce evidence establishing Holbrook's intent to commit a battery. Proof of intent to commit battery is rarely subject to direct proof, but must be established based on surrounding circumstances. Bostic v. State, 638 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994 ). Based on the record before this court, a jury could reasonably infer that Holbrook intended to touch Paul in a matter that would constitute a battery. No evidence of an intention to cause harm is necessary. The trial court properly granted summary judgment against Paul in all respects except with regard to the battery claim against Holbrook. On that claim, we reverse. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court's judgment. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur. 18 19 Case # 5 NUTA'S BOAT YARD v. GENDERS LOUIS NUTA and BETTY NUTA, d/b/a NUTA'S BOAT YARD, Appellants, v. SIDNEY J. GENDERS and LODIE GENDERS, his wife, Appellees. CASE No. 92-620 COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT 617 So. 2d 329; 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3607; 18 Fla. Law W. D 855 March 30, 1993, Filed SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1] As Amended May 25, 1993. Released for Publication May 25, 1993. PRIOR HISTORY: An Appeal from the Circuit Court of Dade County, Philip Bloom and Phillip W. Knight, Judges. DISPOSITION: For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the part of the jury verdict and final judgment awarding the defendants $ 15,000 for future medical expenses and remand with directions for the entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion. COUNSEL: George, Hartz, Lundeen, Flagg & Fulmer and Esther E. Galicia, for appellants. James C. Blecke and John B. Ostrow, for appellees. JUDGES: Before COPE, LEVY and GODERICH, JJ. OPINIONB...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online