Pmp and paul holbrook holbrook on pauls claims against

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: Paul ("Paul") appeals an order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Professional Medical Products, Inc. ("PMP") and Paul Holbrook ("Holbrook") on Paul's claims against Holbrook and PMP for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent hiring and retention. We affirm the entry of summary judgment in all respects except as to the battery claim against Holbrook. On that single claim, we reverse. 16 Paul and Holbrook are [**2] former employees of PMP. Paul testified that Holbrook was her co-worker and not her supervisor. On various occasions, Paul worked alone with Holbrook. During some of these times, Paul alleges that Holbrook harassed her by asking that she wear revealing clothing and suggesting that they engage in sexual relations. Paul claims that on two occasions, Holbrook came up behind her while she was working and tried to massage her shoulders. On both occasions, Paul immediately pulled away and told Holbrook to leave, which he did. After Paul complained to PMP's management, she and Holbrook never again worked the same shifts and his improper behavior toward her ended. [*1312] While Paul takes issue with the trial court's judgment in its entirety, we find merit only in Paul's contention that the trial judge erred in granting summary judgment on her battery claim against Holbrook, finding that Holbrook's contact with Paul amounted to no more than a "casual touching" and concluding that Paul failed to produce evidence establishing intent. A 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. [**3] Sullivan v. Atlantic Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 454 So. 2d 52, 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984 ), review denied, 461 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1985 ); Chorak v. Naughton, 409 So. 2d 35, 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981 ); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 18 ( 1965 ); W. Page Keeton...
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